Nothing means anything if everything means something: exploring the issues of coping profiles and the person-centered approach.

Abstract

Background: Adopting a person-centered approach to coping potentially allows researchers to explore the multifaceted nature of the construct. However, this increasingly adopted approach also has limitations. Namely, employing cluster or latent profile analysis to investigate coping through a person-centered lens often brings a lack of generalizability and subjectivity in interpreting the generated profiles. As such, this study aimed to explore the impact of varied methodology in person-centered investigations of coping profiles.

Methods: 682 university students' (M = 21.3 years old, SD = 3.5) responses to the COPE Inventory were analyzed across item, subscale, and higher-order category levels using cluster and latent profile analysis to produce 6 finalized models for cross-method comparison.

Results: Throughout 19 analyses, approach coping, avoidance coping, low coping, and help-seeking profiles were consistently identified, alluding to the potential of universal coping trends. However, membership overlap across COPE structures and methodology was largely inconsistent, with individual participants classified into theoretically distinct profiles based on the methodology employed.

Conclusion: While evidence suggests latent profile analysis provides a more rigorous approach, the significant impact of minor methodological variations urges a reevaluation of person-centered approaches and incorporation of multi-construct data to enhance the understanding of coping profiles.