A two-factor model of the depression coping questionnaire

Abstract

The original 11 factors reported for the 29-item Depression Coping Questionnaire (DCQ) unnecessarily limits its potential usefulness as a clinically interpretable self-report measure. Therefore, the goal of this study was to reduce the number of DCQ factors to equal the number of core dimensions of depression coping addressed by the measure. Study participants (N = 668) completed the original 29-item DCQ and the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale. The total sample was then split into two equal randomized subsamples. Using a factor loading value cutoff of .40, an initial LISREL exploratory factor analysis produced a 22-item, three-dimension model of positive (10 items), negative (8 items), and substance/sexual (4 items) depression coping behaviors. Because both the negative and substance/sexual dimensions addressed detrimental dimensions of depression coping, these factors were intercorrelated, however, the negative dimension accounted for greater variance. Consequently, given the stated goal of this study the model was then restricted to two core dimensions of positive and negative depression coping. Using the second split-half subsample, a LISREL confirmatory factor analysis produced a 17-item, two-factor model. One negative item (daydreaming) failed to maintain a loading value of .40 or higher and was deleted. The Goodness-of-Fit index for the 17-item, two-factor DCQ was .87 and the Root Mean Square Residual was .08. DCQ alpha coefficients were acceptable at .82 (positive) and .74 (negative). Significant CES-D subgroup differences and correlations were observed.

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of group psychoeducation versus group support in the maintenance of bipolar disorder

“…The coping with depression checklist was derived from items from the Response Style Questionnaire [44], the Depression Coping Checklist [45], items from the coping with mania questionnaire [43] that were also relevant to depression according to a panel of service users from a UK service user organisation (the Bipolar Organisation: the Manic Depression Fellowship) plus four additional items suggested by these service users.…”