Development of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire 24, a Clinically Utilitarian Version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire.

Abstract

Objective: To use principal-components analysis to obtain a shorter and therefore more clinically useful version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ). Subjects: A British sample of 214 chronic back pain patients attending outpatient spinal assessment. Results: A 4-factor solution was discovered that incorporates Catastrophizing, Diversion, Cognitive Coping, and Reinterpreting factors. Apart from the absence of a Praying and Hoping factor, this solution is similar to those previously found by researchers in this field. Conclusions: The new questionnaire (the CSQ24) is a valid utilitarian version of the CSQ that is easy to score and is appropriate for clinical use.

Ethnic differences in pain coping: Factor structure of the coping strategies questionnaire and coping strategies questionnaire-revised

“…[61][62][63] It should be noted that the CSQ-R uses the identical items as the original CSQ, except for those determined to reduce the strength of the instrument. More recently, Harland and Georgieff 29 conducted an item-level investigation of the original CSQ factor structure, and their findings corroborated those of previous researchers who shared concerns about the stability of the factor structure of the full CSQ. In particular, Harland and Georgieff 29 found cross-loadings of several items that seemed to indicate inaccurate measurement of certain constructs, and thus they recommended removal of those items from the tool.…”

Relative utility of a visual analogue scale vs a six-point Likert scale in the measurement of global subject outcome in patients with low back pain receiving physiotherapy

“…In both studies, participants completed a clinical outcomes battery before and after treatment that included measures of pain intensity using a VAS pain scale [12], disability using the Roland-Morris 18-item Disability Questionnaire (RM18) [13], and pain catastrophising using the catastrophising subscale of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire 24 [14]. These measures were chosen because they demonstrate good reliability and validity, and have established clinically important change cut-off scores [15][16][17].…”

Stepped Care to Optimize Pain care Effectiveness (SCOPE) trial study design and sample characteristics

“…Clinical response is assessed with a 7-point Global Rating of Change with the options being much, moderately, or a little better, unchanged, or a little, moderately, or much worse [34]. Pain self-management behaviors [35], pain self-efficacy [30], and pain catastrophizing are also assessed [36,37]. To characterize pain at baseline, patients were asked to report duration and location of pain.…”