An adaptation of the KidCOPE: the KidCOPE-parent (KidCOPE-P) – a parent-report measure of child coping strategies

ABSTRACT

Objective

Understanding how children cope is an important factor in investigating the impact of adversity on child development. With children increasingly experiencing adverse situations – such as the COVID-19 pandemic – having methods of assessing coping strategies is an essential step in supporting self-regulation development. Parent report is a common method of measuring child outcomes, as parents observe children across a range of settings. Thus, the goal of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the KidCOPE-Parent form – an adaptation of the original KidCOPE self-report.

Methods

A sample of 253 children, aged 6–7 years old, across 19 government and catholic schools in Melbourne, Victoria.

Results

Findings indicate that a two-factor model best fits the data, with the KidCOPE-P demonstrating moderately acceptable reliability and validity. There were some differences in mean scores reported between males and females for items relating to problem-solving, social support, and resignation coping strategies.

Conclusion

Overall, the KidCOPE-P is moderately suitable for assessing children’s coping strategies, as observed by a parent. Future research is needed to replicate these findings and continue to explore the KidCOPE-P’s reliability as a parent-report measure of child coping strategies.

KEY POINTS

What is already known about this topic:

1. Children are facing more frequent adverse situations which can impact the development of self-regulation and influence how children cope.

2. Middle childhood (6–12 years old) is a period of rapid development and a potentially critical period for understanding how coping strategies develop.

3. The adapted KidCOPE-Parent form was developed to be a brief parent report measure of children’s coping strategies.

What this study adds:

1. Using a sample of 253 6–7 year olds, statistical analyses and an exploratory factor analysis were run to determine the reliability and factor structure of the KidCOPE-P.

2. Two factors – labelled avoidant coping and active coping – were identified and the KidCOPE-P reported moderate reliability (a = .65).

3. The KidCOPE-P may be a useful, brief parent-report measure with moderate reliability that assesses children’s coping strategies.

KEYWORDS:

• Coping
• primary/elementary school
• children
• measure
• KidCOPE

Measuring children’s coping strategies can be challenging as it requires assessing psychological processes that are not directly observable. Despite this, there are a variety of measures used to assess coping that involve examining children’s actions and behaviours during stressful situations. Self-report measures are commonly employed; typically involving asking children about their coping strategies through surveys and/or rating scales. These include the “Children’s Coping Strategies Questionnaire”, a 33-item self-report questionnaire used to assess children’s coping strategies while facing extreme adversity (Al-Yagon et al., 2022) and the “Coping Scale for Children and Youth”, a 29-item self-report measure of children’s responses to stressful situations (Brodzinsky et al., 1992).

Apart from child self-report, parents and teachers are often asked to provide information about children’s coping. These are generally more comprehensive as they often measure coping across different contexts, e.g., how the child is observed to use coping strategies in the home versus school environment (Ramsey et al., 2016). The reliability and validity of such measures are challenging given the complex nature of children’s experiences, age, developmental stage, background, and context (Ramsey et al., 2016). Regardless, these types of measures are commonly employed when researching coping in early childhood (Gentzler et al., 2005; Moreland & Dumas, 2008; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2017).

Developmental literature suggests that middle childhood – typically spanning 6–12 years of age (Magnuson, 2007) – is a period where coping styles develop rapidly. This is often due to children moving from relying on caregiver support to greater self-reliance (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007; Valiente et al., 2015). Thus, this age presents a potentially critical period for assessing coping. Learning how to cope during childhood has been conceptualised as the process of self-regulation through the development and of coping strategies such as problem-solving, support seeking, escape, rumination, and distraction (B. Compas et al., 2001; Quy et al., 2020; Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011). These are coping strategies that are often measured using tools completed by children, parents, or teachers.

This paper aims to explore one such coping measure, the KidCOPE self-report (Spirito et al., 1988), and how it might be adapted as a parent report measure of children’s coping. The KidCOPE is a brief screening measure, designed to assess the use and efficacy of coping strategies in children and adolescents aged 7 to 18 years old (Spirito et al., 1988). The measure has been used across children and adolescents experiencing natural disasters (Papadatou et al., 2012; Powell et al., 2019; Vigna et al., 2010); trauma (Khamis, 2019); physical illness (Clavé et al., 2019); post-traumatic stress (Marsac et al., 2013); and, within the general population (Garralda & Rangel, 2004; Pereda et al., 2009). In an Australian context, the KidCOPE has been used to assess coping strategies in children (6–13 years) receiving music therapy to reduce distress during radiation therapy (Barry et al., 2010). Additionally, the KidCOPE has been used with regional and rural youth (12–14 years) to assess the efficacy of a mental health promotion programme (McAllister et al., 2018). However, the KidCOPE has not been widely employed with further Australian populations.

The KidCOPE contains 15 items, with versions for children (aged 7–12 years) and adolescents (aged 13–18 years) (Spirito et al., 1988). Compared to longer coping measures, such as the 28-item Brief COPE (Carver, 1997) and 35-item Self-Report Coping Measure (Causey & Dubow, 1992), the KidCOPE is convenient for repeated administration and ease of use. However, evidence of reliability of KidCOPE is partly weakened because each assessed coping strategy only contains one or two items (Spirito et al., 1988). This limitation has been referred to by other studies (Bedel, Isik, et al., 2014; B. Compas et al., 2001). Furthermore, psychometric properties and factor structures have shown variation across countries and in responses to different adversities (Bedel, Isik, et al., 2014; S. Cheng & Chan, 2003; Cherewick et al., 2024; Pereda et al., 2009; Vernberg et al., 1996; Vigna et al., 2010).

Using a 4-point Likert scale, the KidCOPE assesses 10 coping strategies via self-report: distraction, social withdrawal, cognitive restructuring, self-criticism, blaming others, problem-solving, emotional regulation, wishful thinking, social support, and resignation. Despite the limited number of items, KidCOPE demonstrates acceptable test-retest reliability over short intervals (3–5 days, r = .41–.83; S. Cheng & Chan, 2003). Examination of concurrent validity have demonstrated moderate to high correlations between other standardised coping scales and KidCOPE. For example, correlations between .33 and .77 were found with the Coping Strategies Inventory (Tobin et al., 1989), and between .22 and .62 with the Adolescent-Coping Orientation for Problem Experience Inventories (Patterson & Mccubbin, 1983). Previous KidCOPE studies have demonstrated a two-factor structure for the child and adolescent forms (S. Cheng & Chan, 2003; Hsieh et al., 2021; Pereda et al., 2009), labelled active/adaptive coping strategies and avoidant/maladaptive coping strategies.

Research has demonstrated that the pandemic has impacted children through increased reports of depression and anxiety, as well as impacted social relationships, daily routines, and academic achievement (Cachón-Zagalaz et al., 2021; Engzell et al., 2021; Hamoda et al., 2021; Vallejo-Slocker et al., 2022). Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent limitations on accessing and conducting direct assessments with children, the current study developed an adapted version of the original KidCOPE to be completed by parents/caregivers. This was developed to assess children’s coping within a larger pre-existing randomised-control trial in Melbourne, Australia. Due to the pandemic, children could not be directly assessed and existing measures of coping either did not use parent report or had too many items to be considered. Thus, the KidCOPE-parent (KidCOPE-P) form was developed as a brief measure of coping strategies in young children.

This study aimed to adapt the self-reported KidCOPE into a reliable and valid parent-report measure that can be used to assess children’s coping strategies. The study aimed to 1) analyse the psychometric properties of the KidCOPE-P measure in a sample of primary school children in Melbourne, Australia; and, 2) conduct exploratory factor analysis to examine the measure’s construct validity.

Methods

Participants

This project received ethical approval from the University of Melbourne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (#1853492). Data from a randomised controlled trial (Quach et al., 2020) with 253 children (aged 6–7 years old) were used in the validation of the KidCOPE-P. This sample was derived from participants across 19 government and catholic primary schools in Melbourne, Australia, and of these, 46.3% were female and 53.7% were male: see Quach et al’.s (2020) protocol paper for more information on recruitment. Children and parents/caregivers had experienced 263 cumulative days of lockdown and 174 days of remote learning.

Demographic information was collected on a whole school basis using the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s (ACARA) MySchool website (www.myschool.edu.au). Of the 19 schools, 63% had between 1%-6% of students identifying as First Nations peoples. There was an average of 58% of students with a language background other than English. The ACARA also report on the Distribution of Socio-Educational Advantage (SEA) rating given to schools, which has been used to demonstrate levels of socio-economic disadvantage in research. The SEA score indicates the distribution of students across four quartiles representing a scale of relative advantage (top quartile) and disadvantage (bottom quartile) (ACARA, 2020). Across the schools, there was an average of 35% of students in these schools falling into the bottom quartile, with a range of 7%-89%.

Measures

The KidCOPE-Parent (KidCOPE-P)

The KidCOPE-P is a 13-item parent-report form, adapted from the original 15-item KidCOPE measure. The KidCOPE-P assesses eight coping strategies: distraction, social withdrawal, cognitive restructuring, problem-solving, emotional regulation, wishful thinking, social support, and resignation. The KidCOPE-P rates the frequency of an observed coping strategy on a five-point Likert scale (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = a lot, 4 = always).

Two coping strategies from the original KidCOPE measure were removed due to ethical concerns related to the COVID-19 context of the study (e.g., government mandated restrictions). This was done to reduce potential psychological distress. Specifically, when this measure was administered, participants were within pandemic restrictions (i.e., physical distancing, remote learning, and work from home). The items that were removed were “self-criticism” (i.e., “Do you blame yourself for causing the problem?”) and “blaming others” (i.e., “Did you blame someone else for causing the problem?). These items were not conducive to the ethical obligations for reducing the potential of psychological distress for those participating in this study, as the pandemic restrictions were government mandated and restrictions and/or infection were no one person’s burden.

Data analysis

Using SPSS Version 28, descriptive statistics, total-item correlations, and an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) were conducted to examine the factor structure of the 13 items of the KidCOPE-P. A Principal Axis Factor extraction method and Promax rotation were used for this analysis. Promax rotation is an oblique rotation method that has been recommended for the social sciences, as it allows for factors to correlate with each other (Tabachnick, 2013). This is thought to be the most accurate method when factors are highly related, such as the factors relating to coping. For this analysis, factor loadings of greater than or equal to 0.40 were considered significant; wherein, items were retained on the factor in which they had the highest loading. Additionally, a t-test was used to compare groups (i.e., males and females) According to Tabachnick (2013), a minimum of 150 participants was deemed sufficient to complete these analyses.

Results

Mean scores and standard deviations for frequency of use on each coping strategy are presented in Table 1 for the total sample of children and for males and females, in addition to statistical tests for sex-related differences.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for KidCOPE-P for the complete sample and by sex.

		All children (n = 255–259)		Females (n = 117–119)		Males (n = 136–138)		Sex differences
Category	Item	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	p
Distraction	1. “Did they appear to try to forget?”	1.23	0.96	1.13	0.88	1.31	1.02	1.47	255	0.142
	2. “Did they do something, like watch TV or play, to forget?”	1.47	1.1	1.51	1.04	1.44	1.16	−0.54	252	0.59
Social withdrawal	3. “Did they appear to withdraw from others?”	0.88	0.87	0.79	0.75	0.93	0.94	1.29	253	0.197
	4. “Did they appear to keep quiet about the problem?”	1.15	1	1.09	0.95	1.19	1.04	0.77	251	0.44
Cognitive restructuring	5. “Did they appear to try to see the good side of things?”	2.45	0.89	2.56	0.85	2.37	0.91	−1.77	251	0.078
Problem-solving	6. “Did they appear to try to find solutions to make the most of the situation?”	2.31	0.86	2.43	0.83	2.21	0.87	−1.99	251	0.048*
	7. “Did they try to feel better by doing something or talking to someone about it?”	2.36	0.83	2.57	0.77	2.18	0.85	−3.77	252	<.001*
Emotional regulation	8. “Did they shout, scream, or get angry?”	1.53	1.11	1.39	1.09	1.65	1.11	1.86	252	0.064
	9. “Did they appear to try to calm themselves down?”	1.93	0.83	1.98	0.76	1.88	0.88	−0.96	253	0.339
Wishful thinking	10. “Did they appear or say they wished the problem had never happened?”	1.67	1.1	1.67	1.02	1.65	1.17	−0.09	251	0.93
	11. “Did they appear or say they wished they could make things different?”	1.6	1.01	1.58	0.94	1.61	1.07	0.27	252	0.789
Social support	12. “Did they try to feel better by connecting virtually or via smartphone with others, like family or friends?”	1.88	1.15	2.08	1.09	1.71	1.16	−2.67	253	0.008*
Resignation	13. “Did they do nothing because it appeared they felt the problem could not be sorted anyway?”	1.04	0.98	0.84	0.86	1.2	1.04	2.97	253	0.003*

Significant differences were found between males and females for item 6, item 7, item 12, and item 13. The magnitude of the differences in the mean ranged from very small (eta squared = 0.06) to medium (eta squared = 0.48) (Tabachnick, 2013). Zero-order correlations between KidCOPE items are shown in Table 2. With few exceptions, there were significant low to moderate correlations between items. The total scale’s internal consistency indicated a Cronbach’s Alpha of .65.

Table 2. Correlations between KidCOPE-P items.

Scale	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Item 1	–
Item 2	.63**	–
Item 3	.44**	.48**	–
Item 4	.35**	.42**	.57**	–
Item 5	−.20**	−.14*	−.19**	0.02	–
Item 6	−.25**	−.22**	−.21**	−.10	.54**	–
Item 7	−0.11	−.16*	−.58*	−.19**	.62**	.54**	–
Item 8	.32**	.26**	.35**	.29**	−.15*	−.31**	−.18**	–
Item 9	−0.08	−0.05	0.08	0.02	.23**	.33**	.32**	−0.09	–
Item 10	.24**	.26**	.33**	.16**	−0.02	0.05	0.1	.24**	.30**	–
Item 11	.16*	0.09	.23**	0.11	0.02	0.11	0.09	.14*	.22**	.67**	–
Item 12	0.09	0.06	0.01	0.04	.22**	.21**	.23**	−0.03	.15*	.12*	.27**	–
Item 13	.30**	.27**	.32**	.26**	−0.06	−.21**	−.16*	.27**	−0.07	.17**	.13*	−0.05	–

**p = .01 (two-tailed); *p = .05 (two-tailed).

Factor solutions

The 13 items of the KidCOPE-P were subjected to EFA. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of multiple coefficients of .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was .74, exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1974) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

Exploratory factor analysis revealed the presence of three components with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, explaining 26%, 18.5%, and 9.8% of the variance, respectively. An inspection of the scree plot suggested two factors. This was further supported by the results of Parallel Analysis, which showed minimal differences for the third component between the eigenvalues of the corresponding criterion values for a randomly generated data matrix of the same size (13 variables x 255 respondents).

The two-component solution explained 44.4% of the variance, with Component 1 contributing 26.0% and Component 2 contributing 18.5%. Oblimin rotation was performed to aid in interpreting these two components. The rotated solution revealed the presence of simple structure (Thurstone, 1947), with both components showing several strong loadings and all but two variables loading substantially on only one component (Table 3).

Table 3. Pattern and structure matrix for PCA with Oblimin rotation of two factor of KidCOPE items.

	Pattern coefficients		Structure coefficients		Communalities
Item	1	2	1	2
3	.776		.776		.602
1	.724		.727		.535
2	.696		.698		.489
4	.595		.600		.354
8	.594		.593		.375
10	.579	.482	.557	.456	.542
13	.480		.484		.242
6	−.351	.705	−.382	.720	.642
7		.664		.674	.500
9		.613		.610	.375
5		.572		.583	.392
11	.448	.534	.424	.514	.465
12		.510		.506	.264

Of the two double loading items, each demonstrated more significant loadings on one or the other component (<.5) and were allocated on the higher loading component. There was weak a negative correlation between the two factors (r = −.05). Component 1 was labelled as “Avoidant Coping Strategies” and demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (α = .77). This component included the subscales social withdrawal, distraction, and resignation, as well as one item each from emotional regulation (i.e., “Did they shout, scream, or get angry?”) and wishful thinking (i.e., “Did they appear or say they wished the problem had never happened?”). Component 2 was labelled as “Active Coping Strategies” and demonstrated moderate reliability (α = .67). This component included subscales problem-solving, emotional regulation, social support, cognitive restructuring, as well as one item each from emotional regulation (i.e., “Did they appear to try to calm themselves down?”) and wishful thinking (i.e., “Did they appear or say they wished they could make things different?”).

Discussion

This study aimed to adapt the self-reported KidCOPE into a reliable and valid parent-report measure that can be used to assess children’s coping strategies. The KidCOPE-P was found to have moderate reliability (α = .65). While this was below the recommended cut-off (α = .70) (Tabachnick, 2013), it does fit within the original measure’s reliability range (α = .56–.83) (Spirito et al., 1988). Various studies have demonstrated the original measure, the KidCOPE, to have a Cronbach’s Alpha of between .65–.75, which demonstrates moderate reliability (S. Cheng & Chan, 2003; Khamis, 2019; Spirito et al., 1994). Similar to the original scale, the KidCOPE-P was also found to have a two-factor solution – “avoidant coping strategies” and “active coping strategies” (S. Cheng & Chan, 2003; Spirito et al., 1988). These factors were indicated to have moderate to acceptable reliability. However, overall, the reliability of the KidCOPE-P is not optimal.

The results of a series of EFA for testing a common two-factor model relating to the original KidCOPE measure (S. Cheng & Chan, 2003; Spirito et al., 1988) revealed that this two-factor model provided the best fit to the data. Although previous models of the KidCOPE had included one-, three- or four-factor solutions, the PCA conducted with the KidCOPE-P did not support these alternative models (Bedel, Isik, et al., 2014; Vernberg et al., 1996; Vigna et al., 2010). Possible explanations for these contradictions from previous research and current findings may have been due to the characteristics of the samples of children compared to parents, and/or the type of “stressing/coping” event experienced. Furthermore, these subscales demonstrated different levels of reliability, with the “avoidant coping strategies” scale reporting higher internal reliability (α = .77) than the “active coping strategies” scale (α = .67). These were both higher than the KidCOPE-P’s overall internal reliability (α = .65), however, these reflect previous two-factor solution reliabilities identified from the KidCOPE. Specifically, S. Cheng and Chan’s (2003) two-factor solution found “control-oriented coping” (α = .65) and “escape-oriented coping” (α = .76) to have moderate to acceptable internal reliability. This demonstrates that while the reliability of the KidCOPE-P is not optimal, it does align with previous analyses of the original measure.

The current study used a sample of children who had experienced COVID-19 restrictions impacting various factors (e.g., school closures, learning from home, etc.). In contrast, studies such as Vigna et al. (2010) explored a sample of hurricane-exposed, African American, low-income adolescents. While, Bedel, Isik, et al. (2014) examined a general population sample of adolescents who had not experienced a disaster situation. Whether it is a health or natural disaster, there are well-known influences on comparability due to the significant differences in disaster situations and their impacts on individuals (Ferreira et al., 2020). Thus, the current study adds to the literature in terms of understanding the factor structure of a coping measure taken during a unique health disaster situation.

A comparison of mean scores indicated a small but significant difference between children in regard to three subscales: problem-solving, social support, and resignation. Of these, parent’s indicated that girls demonstrated higher mean scores for problem-solving and social support – both within the “active coping strategies” factor – compared to boys, who had higher scores for resignation, which is within the “avoidant coping strategies” factor. Previous research has demonstrated similar trends, wherein gender differences are apparent in similar aspects of coping – such as girls demonstrating greater problem-solving skills when dealing with parent marital conflict (Hosokawa et al., 2019) and greater use of social support skills when handling common stressors during adolescence (Hampel, 2007; Rudolph & Dodson, 2022). Comparatively, boys have demonstrated greater propensity for externalising behaviours when facing adversity (Hosokawa et al., 2019). Thus, the gender differences seen in the KidCOPE-P are consistent with previous coping research.

It is important to recognise the limitations of these findings. While the original KidCOPE had an indicator of both frequency and efficacy, the adapted KidCOPE-P used a Likert scale response to indicate the parent’s observation of the frequency children employed coping strategies. As this is designed as a brief screening measure, the adaptation may be a limitation but does not prevent the measure from being used to explore children’s use of coping strategies, especially from the perspective of a parent/caregiver. Future research should aim to explore the psychometric validity of this measure within a larger sample of diverse participants. Given previous studies indication of psychometric variations due to the type of adversity and participants’ country (S. Cheng & Chan, 2003; Cherewick et al., 2024; Pereda et al., 2009), this would add to understanding the psychometric properties of the KidCOPE-P. Overall, the present study demonstrated that the KidCOPE-P may be a useful, brief parent-report measure with moderate reliability that assesses children’s coping strategies. A parent-report measure of coping will contribute an additional perspective on how children use coping strategies when faced with adversity.

Author contributions

Julia Hall played a lead role in the conceptualisation, data curation, methodology formal analysis, investigation, validation, visualisation, and writing of the original draft, and writing of review and editing. Jon Quach played a lead role in funding acquisition, project administration, resources, software, supervision, and writing of review and editing. Ben Deery played a lead role in supervision and writing of review and editing. Janet Clinton and Peggy Kern played a supporting role in the writing of review and editing.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by A/Prof Jon Quach’s AXA Research Impact Fund grant. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding body.