wy ' t , "Stress Coping Techniques Scale Dr. VijayaLe mi & Dr. ShrutiNa: * 3 ‘prasan PSYCHO www.prasadpsycho.com es scree G00 aos HaoManual of Stress Coping Techniques Scale by Dr. Vijaya Lakshmi Professor and Former Head, P.G. Department of Psychology AN. College, Patna. & Dr. Shruti Narain Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology Patna Women’s College, Patna. \(rasagpsycuo 10 A, Veer Savarkar Block, Shokarpur, New Delhi-92 wwwprasadpsycho.com Intellectual Property and Copyright © 2017 of Prasad Psycho Corporation. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in whole or part in any form of by any means without permission of Prasad Psyche Corporation.In the fast developing society, meet individuals of any age group or any profession and one will find a garden variety of problems ranging from readily apparent emotional disorders like anxiety, depression, addiction (it can be gadget or internet addiction as well), loneliness, etc. to high level of stress (Lakshmi & Narain, 2016). Stress refers to experiencing events that are perceived as endangering one's physical or psychological well-being. The causes of stress vary from one person to the next and so does their responses. What is overwhelming to one person may be exciting and challenging to another (Smith et al., 2003). Therefore, we all know people who throw up their hands in despair when the slightest things go wrong with their plans, yet we know others who seem able to meet setbacks and challenges with equanimity, bringing their personal and social resources to bear on the problem at hand. The impact of any potentially stressful event is thus, substantially influenced by how a. person appraises it. Coping, is therefore, defined as the thoughts and behaviours used to manage the internal and external demands of situations that are appraised as stressful (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Taylor & Stanton, 2007). Managing stress is all about taking charge of ones thoughts, emotions, daily activities, environment, and the way of dealing with problems. As the emotions and physiological arousal created by stressful situations are highly uncomfortable, this discomfort motivates the individual to do something to alleviate it. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) used the term coping to refer to the process by which a person attempts to manage stressful demands, and it takes two major forms. A person cati focus on the specific problem or situation that has arisen, trying to find some way of changing it or avoiding it in the future. This is called problem-focused coping. A person can also focus on alleviating 5the emotions associated with the stressful situation, even if the situation cannot be changed. This is called cmotion-focussed coping. When dealing with a stressful situation, most people use both problem- focussed and emotion-focussed coping. The ultimate goal is a balanced life, with time for work, relationships, relaxation, and plus the resilience to hold up under pressure and meet challenges head on. Thus, coping is a set of transactions between a person who has a set of resources, values, and commitments and a particular environment with its own resources, demands, and constraints (Folkman & Moskovitz, 2004). It is the use of cognitive and behavioural strategies to manage the demands ofa situation when these are appraised at taxing or exceeding one's resources or to reduce the negative emotions and conflict caused by stress (VandenBos & American Psychological Association, 2015). Coping is not a one-time action that someone takes but rather a set of responses, occuring over time, by which the enviroment and the person influence each other. Coping encompasses a great many actions and reactions to stressful circumstances. Thus, emotional reactions, including anger and depression, are part of the coping process, as are actions that are voluntarily undertaken to confront the event. In turn, the resources available to the individual moderate coping efforts (Taylor, 2012). Coping resources are predictive of psychological wellness and act as buffers of emotional disorders (McCarthy et al., 2006). Coping behaviour is a characteristic and often automatic action or set of actions taken in dealing with stressful or the threatening situations. It can be both positive (i.c., adaptive). For example, taking time to meditate or exercise in the middle of a hectic day; or negative (i.c., maladaptive, avoidant), for example, not consulting a doctor when symptoms of serious illness appear or persist (VandenBos & American Psychological Association, 2015). Coping behaviours help in achieving greater personal control over one's environment and in regulating 6emotions and guiding action towards altering a distressing situation (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Different people adopt different coping behaviours and have different coping styles, which refers to the characteristic manner in which an individual confronts and deals with stress, anxicty-provoking situations, or emergencies. It is a propensity to deal with stressful events ina particular way (Taylor, 2012). Hundreds of coping strategies have been identified (Carver & Connor, 2010). When people are under stress, they are less likely to engage in healthy behaviours which may increase a person's subjective sense of stress. In contrast, people who engage in a healthy lifestyle- eating a low-fat diet, drinking alcohol in moderation, getting enough sleep, and excercising regularly- often report that stressful events seem more manageable and they feel more in control of their lives. Thus, engaging in healthy behaviours can help reduce the stressfulness of life as well as reducing the risk or progression of a number of diseases (Smith et al. 2003). Research has illustrated that secking social support can buffer the adverse effects of stress. Unfortunately, people under stress sometimes alienate rather than engage those people who might provide support. For example, a harried worker snaps at his wife and children, or a student facing a big exam angrily rejects a friend's well- intentioned advice (Taylor, 2012). Owing'to the fact that people have different coping strategies, this scale has two broad dimensions, the brief description of which is below: (a) Adaptive (Positive) coping techniques- Adaptive coping refers to the behaviours that enables an individual to adjust to the environment effectively and function optimally in various domains. Many stress management programs emphasize good health habits and social skills as additional techniques for the control of stress. These include good eating habits, exercise, assertiveness in social situations, and use ofsocial support (Taylor, 2012). Among others are time management and planning, humor, sharing with reasonable individuals, praying to God, venting out emotions like crying. (b) Maladaptive (Negative) coping techniques- Some strategies provide temporary relief in short run, but tend to be maladaptive in the end. Stress often affects eating habits adversely: People under stress consume too many stimulants (such as coffee), too much sugar, and too much junk food. Among others are alienation, procastination, and avoidance, wasting time, venting out emotions on others, self- medication, sleeping too much or too little, self-blame or unnecessarily criticizing other, smoking, drug abuse and the like. Table 1 below shows the division of the items ofeach dimension: Division of the Items ae Dimensions Serial-wise Item No. Total —_ 2, 6,7, 9, 1, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 1. | sess Coping | 2425, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 37, 39, | 4 . cosh ee | 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, Techniques 55, 56, 57, 58 and 61. Maladaptive | 1, 3, 4,5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, Il. | Stress Coping | 27, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 44, 47,48, | 25 Techniques 49, 59 and 60. Total 61 First, different people of different age groups across gender (N=53) were interviewed (unstructured) to know the various methods that they adopt for coping with stress. Omitting repeated techniques used, 117 items were written and submitted to a group of language experts to makenent and to God, ategies e in the + stress ind too tal necessary corrections and modifications. Subsequently, they were submitted to a group of experts (teachers) of Psychology, Sociology and Education for knowing about any disparities in meaning of the contents of the items. Out of the 117 items, 92 reached common consensus. Then the scale was administered on 490 individuals ranging from students of | Class IX to adults and scores were obtained. The mean age range of the sample of the pilot study was 41.9 years. Itis a Likert-type scale having, 5 options where 5 stands for ‘Always’, 4 for ‘Almost Always”, 3 for Sometimes’, 2 for Almost never' and 1 for'Never’. The response of the subjects on each item on each dimension was scored and a total score was obtained for each dimension. Then obtained total scores were arranged from the highest level in decreasing order to their lowest level and the median value was obtained from it. Following it, item analysis was done dividing the total score into two categories: median and above median, one category and, below median, the other category by clubbing the response categories 1 to 3 into one and 4-5 into another one. Thus 2 x 2 contingency table was prepared for the purpose. Then Chi-square was calculated and then its obtained value was converted into Phi-coefficient (Singh, 2013). Some values were significant while some values were not significant. Finally, a set of 61 items were retained for Stress Coping Techniques Seale. There are no negative items in this le This scale is meant for individuals from 15 years and above of age. It can be administered either by self or by the investigator. It may be used in group as well as individual condition. There is no fixed time limit as such. However, it generally takes about 20 to 25 minutes in its completion. For smooth administration of Stress Coping Techniques Scale, clear instructions are printed on the first page.<> The scoring of all the items of this Scale can be done by giving a score 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 for ‘Always’, ‘Almost always’, ‘Sometimes’, ‘Almost never’ and 'Never' respectively. Scores carned are added together to yield total score for cach dimension. There is no overall score for the Stress Coping Techniqus Scale as according to the psychometric principle, an individual can fall high in either of the dimensions not on both. Ifa person gets a 'High' score on both the dimensions then treat it as inconsistency response. The higher qualitative interpretion obtained between the two dimensions i. e. Adaptive or Maladaptive Stress Coping Technique, will be taken as the final stress coping technique adopted. Scoring System oe Almost - Almost |. Dimensions | Always | ‘jways |Sometimes| “Novey | Never ‘Adaptive 5 4 3 2 1 Maladaptive | __ 5 4 3 2 | 1 ip The test re-test reliability was calculated and was found to be 0.82 and the split-half reliability was found to be 0.79. All reliability coefficients were significant at .01 level.

The Stress Coping Tecniques Scale has sufficient content and concurrent validity. First, a group of experts (N=12) provided a high level of consensus regarding suitability of items in terms of being important representative of Adaptive and Maladaptive Stress Coping Techniques. They were requested to rank on four-point scale: 1) True 10representative 2) Representative 3) Undecided 4) Not Representative. The coefficient of concordance (W) among the ranking of the 12 experts was .68, which was significant in terms of Chi-square test of significance. This provided evidence for the content validity of the tests (Singh, 2013). The Stress Coping Tecniques Scale was validated against the COPE inventory (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989). The concurrent validity, 0.80 was significant. <> Grade norms for Stress Coping Tecniques Scale have been developed. The subjects have been classified into three categories viz. High, Moderate, and Low on Adaptive and Maladaptive stress coping techniques based on the raw scores of each dimension separately. litative Interpretation The qualitative interpretation of the obtained scores on Stress Coping Tecniques Scale is as under: Qualitative Interpretation of scores of Stress Coping Tecniques Scale Dimensions Range of Scores Qualitative Interpretation 120 or above High eee serees 97-119 Moderate Coping Techniques Below 97 Low 83 or above High Maladaptive Stress Coping Techniques ones Moderate Below 64 Lowa> r, 0). Personality and Coping. Annual ver, C. S. & Connor, S. J. (201 coves Review of Psychology. 61: 679-704. PMID 19572784, doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008. 100352. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989), Assessing “coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283. Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and Promise. The Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745-774, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456 Folkman, S. , & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes, it must bea Process: A study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170. Lakshmi, V. & Narain, S. (2016). Stressed, depressed yet well-dressed- its time to introspect. Aungrah Jyoti, 84-85. Lazarus, R. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer. McCarthy, C. J., Fouladi, R. T., Juncker, B. D. and Matheny, K. B. (2006), Psychological Resources as Stress Buffers: Their Relationship to University Students' Anxiety and Depression. Journal of College Couns: eling, 9: 99-110. doi:10.1 002/.2161- 1882.2006.tb00097.x Singh, A. K. (2013). Tests, Measurements and Research Behavioural Sciences. Distributors). Methods in Bharti Bhawan (Publishers & Smith, E. E., Hoeksema, S, N., Fredrickson, B. & Loftus, G. R. (2013). 12Atkinson & Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology. Pg. 494, 509 & 510. Taylor, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2007). Coping resources, coping processes, and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,3,377-401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091520 Taylor, S. E. (2012). Health psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. 167- 191. VandenBos, G. R., & American Psychological Association. (2015). Resilience. APA dictionary of psychology. Pg. 252-253. Washington, DC : American Psychological Association.