Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs > v.48(3) > 1108873

TOOLS
Song, Kim, So, and Kim: Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale–Short-Form in Cancer Patients
Original Article

J Korean Acad Nurs 2018;48(3):375-388.

Published online: 15 January 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2018.48.3.375

Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale–Short-Form in Cancer Patients

Chi Eun Song1, Hye Young Kim2, Hyang Sook So3, Hyun Kyung Kim2,

1Department of Nursing, Nambu University, Gwangju

2College of Nursing · Research Institute of Nursing Science, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju

3College of Nursing, Chonnam National University · Chonnam Research Institute of Nursing Science, Gwangju, Korea

Address reprint requests to : Kim, Hye Young College of Nursing Research · Institute of Nursing Science, Chonbuk National University, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju, 54896, Korea Tel: +82-63-270-4618 Fax: +82-63-270-3127 E-mail: tcellkim@jbnu.ac.kr

Received 31 August 2017       Revised 19 April 2018       Accepted 21 April 2018

Copyright © 2018 Korean Society of Nursing Science

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs License. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0) If the original work is properly cited and retained without any modification or reproduction, it can be used and re-distributed in any format and medium.

Abstract

Purpose

This study was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short-Form in patients with cancer.

Methods

The original scale was translated into Korean using Brislin's translation model. The Korean Short-Form and the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy-General were administered to 164 Korean patients with cancer using convenience sampling method. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 23.0. Construct validity, criterion validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency reliability of the Korean Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short-Form were evaluated.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis supported the construct validity with a four-factor solution that explained 60.6% of the total variance. Factor loadings of the 15 items on the four subscales ranged .52~.86. The four-subscale model was validated by confirmatory factor analysis (Normed χ 2=1.38 (p=.013), GFI=.92, SRMR=.02, RMSEA=.05, TLI=.94, and CFI=.95), and criterion validity was demonstrated with the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy-General. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency of the total scale was .83 and ranged .68~.81 for all subscales, demonstrating sufficient test-retest reliability.

Conclusion

The Korean version showed satisfactory construct and criterion validity, as well as internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

Keywords: Adaptation, Psychological, Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results

References

1. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Cognitive theories of stress and the issue of circularity. Appley MH, Trumbull R, editors. Dynamics of Stress: Physiological and Social Perspectives. New York: Plenum Press;1986. p. 63–80.
crossref
2. Aldwin CM. Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York: Guilford Press;2007. p. 32–149.
3. Roy C. Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly. 2011; 24(4):312–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218.
4. Holland KD, Holahan CK. The relation of social support and coping to positive adaptation to breast cancer. Psychology and Health. 2003; 18(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044031000080656.
5. Dempster M, Howell D, McCorry NK. Illness perceptions and coping in physical health conditions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2015; 79(6):506–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.10.006.
crossref
6. Roy C. The Roy adaptation model. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Education, Inc.;2009. p. 29–124.
7. Kim JH, Han JY, Shaw B, McTavish F, Gustafson D. The roles of social support and coping strategies in predicting breast cancer patients’ emotional well-being: Testing mediation and moderation models. Journal of Health Psychology. 2010; 15(4):543–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309355338.
8. Vallurupalli M, Lauderdale K, Balboni MJ, Phelps AC, Block SD, Ng AK, et al. The role of spirituality and religious coping in the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative radiation therapy. The Journal of Supportive Oncology. 2012; 10(2):81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suponc.2011.09.003.
crossref
9. Garcia C. Conceptualization and measurement of coping during adolescence: A review of the literature. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2010; 42(2):166–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01327.x.
crossref
10. Alkrisat M, Dee V. The validation of the coping and adaptation processing scale based on the Roy adaptation model. Journal of Nursing Measurement. 2014; 22(3):368–380. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.22.3.368.
crossref
11. Roy C, Bakan G, Li Z, Nguyen TH. Coping measurement: Creating short form of Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale using item response theory and patients dealing with chronic and acute health conditions. Applied Nursing Research. 2016; 32:73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2016.06.002.
crossref
12. Jalowiec A. Coping with illness: Synthesis and critique of the nursing coping literature from 1980-1990. Barnfather JS, Lyon BL, editors. Stress and Coping: State of the Science and Implications for Nursing Theory, Research and Practice. Indianapolis (IN): Center Nursing Press;1993. p. 65–83.
13. Luengo-Fernandez R, Leal J, Gray A, Sullivan R. Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: A population-based cost analysis. The Lancet Oncology. 2013; 14(12):1165–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70442-X.
crossref
14. Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Prentice Hall;2010. p. 578–581.
15. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1993; 11(3):570–579. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570.
crossref
16. Kim H, Yoo HJ, Kim YJ, Han OS, Lee KH, Lee JH, et al. Development and validation of Korean Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2003; 22(1):215–229.
17. Khalili N, Farajzadegan Z, Mokarian F, Bahrami F. Coping strategies, quality of life and pain in women with breast cancer. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research. 2013; 18(2):105–111.
18. Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology. 1970; 1(3):185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301.
crossref
19. Brislin RW. The wording and translation of research instruments. Lonner WL, Berry JW, editors. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage;1986. p. 137–164.
20. Chayaput P. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Thai version of the coping and adaptation processing scale [dissertation]. Boston (NY): Boston College;2004. p. 1–200.
21. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research. 1986; 35(6):382–385.
crossref
22. Kim GS. Analysis structural equation modeling. Seoul: Han-narae Publishing Co.;2010. p. 191–387.
23. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007; 60(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
crossref
24. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes. 3rd ed. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons;2016. p. 134–136.
25. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill;1994. p. 248–278.
26. Zhan L. Cognitive adaptation and self-consistency in hearing-impaired older persons: Testing Roy’s adaptation model. Nursing Science Quarterly. 2000; 13(2):158–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/08943180022107447.
crossref
27. Chayaput P, Roy C. Psychometric testing of the Thai ver- sion of the coping and adaptation processing scale-short form (TCAPS-SF). Thai Journal of Nursing Council. 2007; 22(3):29–39.
28. Gutiérrez López C, Veloza Gómez MDM, Moreno Fergusson ME, de Villalobos D, Mercedes M, López de Mesa C, et al. Validity and confidence level of the Spanish version instrument of Callista Roy Coping Adaptation Processing Scale. Aquichán. 2007; 7(1):54–63.
29. Park HA. Problems and issues in developing measurement scales in nursing. Journal of Nursing Query. 2005; 14(1):46–72.

Table 1.
General and Clinical Participant Characteristics (N=164)
Characteristics Classification n (%) M±SD (Range)
Gender Male 97 (59.1)
Female 67 (40.9)
Age (yr) Under 30 26 (15.9) 46.64±13.29 (19~78)
31~40 25 (15.2)
41~50 45 (27.4)
51~60 47 (28.7)
Over 61 21 (12.8)
Marital status Married 121 (73.8)
Single/divorce/separation/bereavement 43 (26.2)
Educational level Under or equal to high school 97 (59.1)
Over or equal to college 67 (40.9)
Occupation Yes 91 (55.5)
No 73 (44.5)
Types of diagnosis Acute leukemia 114 (69.5)
Lymphoma 18 (11.0)
Multiple myeloma 14 (8.5)
Chronic leukemia 12 (7.4)
Others* 6 (3.6)
Duration of disease (month) ≤5 60 (36.6) 29.48±104.82 (1~318)
6~15 34 (20.7)
16~25 18 (11.0)
26~35 14 (8.5)
36~45 13 (7.9)
≥46 25 (15.3)

M±SD=Mean standard deviation.

* Myelodysplastic syndrome, aplastic anemia.

Table 2.
Items and Subscales Characteristics and Reliability of KCAPS-SF (N=30)
Subscales and items M±SD Range Missing data % Floor effect % Ceiling effect % Skewness Kurtosis Corrected item-total correlation Cronbach’s α Test-retest ICC
Resourceful and focused 1 15.03±2.19 5~20 1.2 2.4 0.19 -0.01 - .75 .85
3. Gather as much information 3.11±0.60 1~4 0.0 0 14.6 -0.04 -0.23 .56
as possible to increase my
options
4. Generally try to make 2.91±0.62 1~4 0.0 0 13.6 0.06 -0.40 .46
everything work in my favor
6. Try to get more resources to 3.09±0.61 1~4 0.0 0 14.0 -0.05 -0.32 .63
deal with the situation
11. Try to be creative and come 2.94±0.68 1~4 0.0 0.6 14.1 -0.04 -0.50 .54
up with a new solution
15. Develop a plan with a 2.98±0.60 1~4 0.0 0 13.9 0.01 -0.19 .41
series of actions to deal
with the event
Physical and fixed 7.31±1.78 3~12 0.6 3.6 1.10 1.25 - .81 .83
5. Can think of nothing else, 2.52±0.71 1~4 0.0 1.2 10.9 0.79 -0.29 .58
except what's bothering me
13. Tend to lie sick in bed 2.41±0.68 1~4 0.0 1.8 9.1 1.02 0.32 .60
14. Give up easily too often 2.38±0.69 1~4 0.0 3.0 8.5 0.97 0.49 .72
Positive and knowing-based 1 11.28±1.81 4~16 0.6 4.8 0.51 0.67 - .70 .81
7. Use humor in handling the 2.67±0.71 1~4 0.0 0.6 13.3 0.47 -0.75 .53
situation
9. Take strength from 2.67±0.65 1~4 0.0 0.6 9.1 0.30 -0.54 .57
spirituality or the successes
of courageous people
10. Can benefit from my past 2.96±0.56 1~4 0.0 0 13.9 -0.01 0.19 .53
experiences for what is
happening now
12. Brainstorm as many 2.98±0.56 1~4 0.0 0.6 13.9 -0.21 0.91 .50
possible solutions as I can
even if they seem far out
Alert processing 8.41±1.37 3~12 1.2 5.5 0.50 0.76 - .68 .81
1. Can follow a lot of directions 2.90±0.61 1~4 0.0 0 13.9 0.06 -0.35 .47
at once, even in a crisis
2. Call the problem what it is 3.08±0.59 1~4 0.0 0 14.2 -0.01 -0.09 .44
and try to see the whole
picture
8. Can solve problems more 2.43±0.63 1~4 0.0 1.2 6.1 0.86 0.13 .40
effectively under stress
Total 42.03±5.14 15~60 0.6 0.6 0.93 1.64 - .83 .83

ICC=Intraclass correlation coefficient; KCAPS-SF=Korean version Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short-Form; M±SD=Mean standard deviation.

Table 3.
Factor Loading from Exploratory Factor Analysis for KCAPS-SF in Four Sub-factors Model
Factors Items Factors Communality
I II III IV
I Resourceful and focused Item 3 .74 .08 .14 .08 .59
Item 6 .73 .05 .27 .13 .62
Item 11 .71 .02 .10 .20 .55
Item 4 .67 .26 .04 -.01 .52
Item 15 .52 -.29 .25 .30 .51
II Physical and fixed Item 14 .11 .86 .11 .03 .77
Item 13 .07 .83 .20 .07 .74
Item 5 .06 .79 .06 .04 64
III Positive and knowing-based Item 9 .07 .15 .85 -.03 .75
Item 7 .26 .26 .65 .06 .56
Item 12 .22 .17 .60 .30 .53
Item 10 .2 -.26 .56 .28 .51
IV Alert processing Item 8 -.06 -.02 .25 .74 .62
Item 2 .28 .22 .01 .70 .62
Item 1 .45 .03 .12 .60 .57
Eigenvalue 2.79 2.46 2.10 1.72
Variance (%) 18.6 16.4 14.0 11.5
Cumulative variance (%) 18.6 35.1 49.1 60.6
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)=.80; Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2=724.76 (p<.001)

KCAPS-SF=Korean version Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short-Form.

Table 4.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for KCAPS-SF
Subscales Item Estimate SE Critical ratio SRW Error estimate e CR AVE Inter-subscale correlation
Resourceful and focused Item 3 1.00 - - .68 .27 .90 .65 .29~.70*
Item 4 0.84 0.14 5.89 .54 .16
Item 6 1.14 0.15 7.54 .75 .29
Item 11 1.10 0.16 6.82 .65 .24
Item 15 0.66 0.14 4.88 .50 .13
Physical and fixed Item 5 1.00 - - .65 .26 .89 .72 .23~.45*
Item 13 1.24 0.15 8.03 .83 .29
Item 14 1.28 0.16 8.03 .85 .15
Positive and knowing-based Item 7 1.00 - - .69 .17 .88 .65 .45~.61*
Item 9 0.86 0.13 6.54 .65 .26
Item 10 0.49 0.11 4.60 .52 .26
Item 12 0.75 0.12 6.57 .66 .18
Alert processing Item 1 1.00 - - .73 .22 .83 .62 .23~.70*
Item 2 0.80 0.14 5.73 .61 .19
Item 8 0.61 0.14 4.49 .53 .32
χ2(p)=115.67 (p=.013), χ2/df=1.38, GFI=.92, SRMR=.02, RMSEA=.05, TLI=.94, CFI=.95

AVE=Average variance extracted; CFI=Comparative fit index; CR=Composite reliability; GFI=Goodness of fit index; KCAPS-SF=Korean version Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short-Form; RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation; SE=Standardized estimate; SRMR=Standardized root mean residual; SRW=Standardized regression weights; TLI=Turner-Lewis index.

* p<.001.

Table 5.
Correlations between the Subscales in KCAPS-SF and FACT-G for Criterion Validity
KCAPS-SF subscales
Total r(p) Resourceful and focused r(p) Physical and fixed r(p) Positive and knowing-based r(p) Alert processing r(p)
FACT-G .41(<.001) .42 (<.001) .46 (<.001) .37 (<.001) .40 (<.001)

FACT-G=Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy-General; KCAPS-SF=Korean version Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short-Form.

TOOLS
Similar articles