ArticlePsicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS2025
Understanding the structure of coping strategies in context: a psychometric validation of the Brief-COPE among Colombian adults.
Article in Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study validates the Spanish version of the Brief-COPE in the Colombian context. This tool assesses 14 different coping strategies, including positive coping, planning, emotional support, instrumental support, substance use, and religion, among others. The structural validations of this tool in Latin America, Europe, North America, and Asia yielded heterogeneous results, with validations in Latin America often having limitations in their data analysis methodologies and sample size. This study aims to address these limitations and provide methodologically sound evidence on the structural validity, reliability, and convergent and divergent validity of the instrument for adults in Colombia.
methodsA total of 762 participants completed the Brief-COPE along with the ERQ, the Wellbeing Index, the HSCL-25, the PCL-C, and the Kessler 6. Categorical Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the fit of 12 different theory and data-driven models. After identifying the best-fitting model, reliability, divergent, and convergent validity were assessed for the resulting factors.
resultsThe best-fitting CFA model for the Brief-COPE had 11 factors: active coping, social support, acceptance, venting, self-distraction, behavioral disengagement, denial, self-blame, humor, religion, and substance use. Substance use, active coping, religion, social support, humor, self-blame, denial, and behavioral disengagement demonstrated good reliability (Omega > = .7), whereas the remaining subscales demonstrated insufficient reliability (Omega > .6 and Omega < .7). Maladaptive coping strategies were found to positively correlate with distress measures, while adaptive strategies exhibited negative correlations, as expected. However, social support and humor presented significant positive associations with PCL-C and HSCL.
conclusionsThis study provides evidence supporting an 11-factor structure for the Brief-COPE in Colombian adults, with most factors demonstrating satisfactory reliability. Researchers should use caution when interpreting subscales with lower reliability. The results also underscore the influence of cultural context on coping patterns, given the heterogeneous factor structures found in other validations. Future studies should recruit more diverse samples to enhance generalizability and further investigate the predictive validity of this adapted tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.