ArticleBMC psychology2025
Coping strategies in challenging situations among informal caregivers: validation of the newly developed six-item German short version of the Brief COPE Inventory (COPE 6).
Article in BMC psychology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory (Brief COPE) is a well-established instrument for assessing coping strategies. Nevertheless, research has shown that it has a heterogenous factor structure, thus suggesting the need for a more economical version that considers previously identified broader factor structures. Consequently, the COPE 6 was developed as a six-item short version that measures functional coping (FC) and dysfunctional coping (DC) strategies. The aim of this study was to validate the COPE 6.
methodsThe validation sample included 961 German informal caregivers. A principal component analysis was conducted. Cronbach’s alpha and the Spearman-Brown formula were calculated to analyze reliability. The item characteristics were identified by discriminatory power and item difficulty indices. Construct validity was analyzed by testing five hypotheses.
resultsTwo components were extracted: FC and DC. The reliability was α = .71 for the FC subscale and rsb = .16 for the DC subscale. The FC subscore was largely associated with the Brief COPE FC subscore and weakly associated with the Benefits of Being a Caregiver Scale score. The DC subscore showed small correlations with both the Brief COPE DC subscore and the short version of the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers score. Correlations with demographic factors and the subscales of the Social Desirability-Gamma Short Scale were negligible to small.
conclusionThe COPE 6 is the first theory-based adaptation of the Brief COPE to measure FC in an economical way. The FC subscale represents a valid and reliable tool for assessing FC strategies. The current form of the DC subscale appears to measure two extreme aspects of DC with insufficient convergent validity so far. Additional research is needed to develop this subscale further.
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.