Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory (Brief-COPE) （因应量表）

synopsis（简介）

The Brief-COPE is a 28 item self-report questionnaire designed to measure effective and ineffective ways to cope with a stressful life event. “Coping” is defined broadly as an effort used to minimise distress associated with negative life experiences.

The scale is often used in health-care settings to ascertain how patients are emotionally responding to a serious circumstance. It can be be used to measure how someone is coping with a wide range of adversity, including a cancer diagnosis, heart failure, injuries, assaults, natural disasters, financial stress or mental illness. The scale is useful in counselling settings for formulating the helpful and unhelpful ways someone responds to stressors.

The scale can determine someone’s primary coping styles with scores on the following three subscale:

Problem-Focussed Coping

Emotion-Focussed Coping

Avoidant Coping.

In addition, the following facets of coping are reported: Self-distraction, Denial, Substance Use, Behavioural disengagement, Emotional Support, Venting, Humour, Acceptance, Self-Blame, Religion, Active Coping, Use of Instrumental Support, Positive Reframing, and Planning.

The Brief-COPE 是一份包含 28 个项目的自我报告问卷，旨在测量应对生活压力事件的有效和无效方法。"应对 "的广义定义是用来尽量减少与消极生活经历相关的痛苦的一种努力。
该量表通常用于医疗机构，以确定病人对严重情况的情绪反应。它可以用来衡量一个人如何应对各种逆境，包括癌症诊断、心脏衰竭、受伤、袭击、自然灾害、经济压力或精神疾病。该量表在心理咨询中非常有用，可以帮助人们制定应对压力的有用和无用方法。
该量表可以通过以下三个分量表的得分来确定一个人的主要应对方式：
以问题为中心的应对方式
以情绪为中心的应对方式
回避型应对方式。
此外，还报告了以下几种应对方式： 自我疏远、否认、物质使用、行为脱离、情感支持、发泄、幽默、接受、自责、宗教、积极应对、使用工具支持、积极重塑和计划。

Validity and Reliability（信效度）

The Brief-Cope was developed as a short version of the original 60-item COPE scale (Carver et al., 1989), which was theoretically derived based on various models of coping. The Brief-COPE was initially validated on a 168 participant community sample who had been impacted by a hurricane (Carver, 1997).

Two alternative ways of delineating factors have been reported in the literature. A study with heart failure patients (Eisenberg et al., 2012) indicated two major factors: (1) Avoidant Coping, and (2) Approach Coping.

Subsequent analysis by Dias et al. (2012) divided the scale into three factors; (1) Problem-focused coping, (2) Emotion-focused coping, and (3) Avoidant coping. The three factor model is used for scoring purposes within NovoPsych.

Poulus et al. (2020) validated the scale among 316 esports athletes and found the following means and standard deviations for each subscale.

Problem focussed – 2.47 (0.63)

Emotional focussed – 2.23 (0.49)

Avoidant coping – 1.64 (0.45)

This data is used to compute percentile ranks, indicating the typical range of scores for non-clinical respondents. 

Brief-Cope 是最初的 60 项 COPE 量表（Carver 等人，1989 年）的简版，该量表是根据各种应对模式从理论上推导出来的。简要-COPE 最初是在受飓风影响的 168 个社区样本中验证的（Carver，1997 年）。
文献中报道了两种划分因素的替代方法。一项针对心力衰竭患者的研究（Eisenberg 等人，2012 年）指出了两个主要因素： (1) 逃避式应对和 (2) 接近式应对。
Dias 等人（2012 年）随后的分析将该量表分为三个因子：（1）以问题为中心的应对；（2）以情感为中心的应对；以及（3）回避型应对。NovoPsych 采用三因素模型进行评分。
Poulus 等人（2020 年）在 316 名电竞运动员中验证了该量表，发现各分量表的平均值和标准差如下。
问题集中 - 2.47 (0.63)
情绪集中 - 2.23 (0.49)
回避型应对 - 1.64 (0.45)
该数据用于计算百分位数排名，显示非临床受访者的典型得分范围。

Scoring and Interpretation（得分解释）

Scores are presented for three overarching coping styles as average scores (sum of item scores divided by number of items), indicating the degree to which the respondent has been engaging in that coping style.

= I haven’t been doing this at all

= A little bit

= A medium amount

= I’ve been doing this a lot

A normative percentile is presented based on data from a non-clinical sample of athletes (Poulus et al., 2020). Interpretation by way of normative percentile helps contextualise results in comparison to typical responses of regular individuals.

In addition, a clinical percentile is presented which compares responses to clients receiving outpatient mental health services (Hegarty & Buchanan, 2021). A percentile of 50, for example, represents an average score for a client in psychological therapy, whereas a percentile of 90 indicates that the respondents scored higher than 90 percent of other individuals in treatment.

During interpretation it is most helpful to look at the pattern of responding across the three subscales. Consistently low scores on all subscales may indicate either:

The respondent does not feel they have many stressors to cope with. For example, that life is stress free.

A lack of reflective capacity or resistance to disclose personal information.

The respondent does not have many coping skills.

The three overarching coping styles are outlined below.

Problem-Focused Coping (Items 2, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25)

Characterised by the facets of active coping, use of informational support, planning, and positive reframing. A high score indicates coping strategies that are aimed at changing the stressful situation. High scores are indicative of psychological strength, grit, a practical approach to problem solving and is predictive of positive outcomes.

Emotion-Focused Coping (Items 5, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28)

Characterised by the facets of venting, use of emotional support, humour, acceptance, self-blame, and religion. A high score indicates coping strategies that are aiming to regulate emotions associated with the stressful situation. High or low scores are not uniformly associated with psychological health or ill health, but can be used to inform a wider formulation of the respondent’s coping styles.

Avoidant Coping (Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 16, 19)

Characterised by the facets of self-distraction, denial, substance use, and behavioural disengagement. A high score indicate physical or cognitive efforts to disengage from the stressor. Low scores are typically indicative of adaptive coping.

In addition to the three overarching subscales, scores are presented for the below 14 facets. Individual examination of the questions can pinpoint adaptive or maladaptive styles of coping and be useful for eliciting a discussion with the respondent.

Scores are also presented for each of the following facets:

Active coping, items 2 & 7 (Problem-Focused)

Use of informational support, items 10 & 23 (Problem-Focussed)

Positive reframing, items 12 & 17 (Problem-Focused)

Planning, items 14 & 25 (Problem-Focused)

Emotional support, items 5 & 15 (Emotion-Focused)

Venting, items 9 & 21 (Emotion-Focused)

Humor, items 18 & 28 (Emotion-Focused)

Acceptance, items 20 & 24 (Emotion-Focused)

Religion, items 22 & 27 (Emotion-Focused)

Self-blame, items 13 & 26 (Emotion-Focused)

Self-distraction, items 1 & 19 (Avoidant)

Denial, items 3 & 8 (Avoidant)

Substance use, items 4 & 11 (Avoidant)

Behavioral disengagement, items 6 & 16 (Avoidant)

If the scale is administered more than once results will be graphed over time, indicating the degree to which coping strategies have changed.

三种主要应对方式的得分以平均分（项目得分之和除以项目数）表示，表明受访者在多大程度上采用了该应对方式。
= 我完全没有这样做
= 有一点
= 中等程度
= 我经常这样做
标准百分位数是根据非临床样本运动员的数据得出的（Poulus 等人，2020 年）。通过常模百分位数进行解释，有助于将结果与普通人的典型反应进行比较。
此外，还提供了一个临床百分位数，用于比较接受门诊心理健康服务的客户的反应（Hegarty & Buchanan，2021 年）。例如，百分位数为 50 代表接受心理治疗的客户的平均得分，而百分位数为 90 则表示受访者的得分高于 90% 接受治疗的其他人。
在解释过程中，观察三个分量表的反应模式是最有帮助的。所有分量表上的得分都持续偏低可能说明以下两种情况
答卷人认为自己需要应对的压力不大。例如，生活没有压力。
缺乏反思能力或不愿透露个人信息。
答卷人没有太多的应对技能。
三种主要应对方式概述如下。
以问题为中心的应对方式（项目 2、7、10、12、14、17、23、25）
以积极应对、利用信息支持、计划和积极重塑为特征。高分表示应对策略旨在改变压力状况。高分表明心理力量、勇气和解决问题的实际方法，并预示着积极的结果。
以情绪为重点的应对（项目 5、9、13、15、18、20、21、22、24、26、27、28）
以发泄、使用情感支持、幽默、接受、自责和宗教为特征。高分表示应对策略旨在调节与压力情境相关的情绪。高分或低分与心理健康或不健康的关系并不一致，但可用于对被调查者的应对方式进行更广泛的表述。
回避型应对方式（项目 1、3、4、6、8、11、16、19）
以自我疏远、否认、使用药物和行为脱离为特征。高分表示通过身体或认知努力脱离压力源。低分通常表示适应性应对。
除了三个总体分量表外，还列出了以下 14 个方面的得分。对这些问题的个别研究可以确定适应性或适应不良的应对方式，并有助于与受调查者进行讨论。
本表还列出了以下各方面的得分：
积极应对，项目 2 和 7（以问题为中心）
使用信息支持，第 10 和 23 项（以问题为中心）
积极重塑，第 12 和 17 项（以问题为中心）
规划，第 14 项和第 25 项（以问题为中心）
情感支持，第 5 项和第 15 项（关注情感）
发泄，第 9 和 21 项（关注情感）
幽默，第 18 和 28 项（以情感为中心）
接受，第 20 和 24 项（关注情感）
宗教，项目 22 和 27（情绪聚焦）
自责，项目 13 和 26（情感焦点）
自我疏远，项目 1 和 19（回避型）
否认，项目 3 和 8（回避型）
药物使用，项目 4 和 11（回避型）
行为脱离，第 6 和 16 项（回避型）
如果该量表实施了多次，其结果将随着时间的推移绘制成图表，以显示应对策略的变化程度。