Coping in the Danish general population: psychometric properties of the Danish version of the Brief Approach/Avoidance Coping Questionnaire.

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Psychology & Health Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-31 DOI:10.1080/08870446.2023.2215263
Lisa M S Sætre, Isabella P Raasthøj, Dorte E Jarbøl, Kirubakaran Balasubramaniam, Sonja Wehberg, Tina B W Carstensen, Christina M Andersen
{"title":"Coping in the Danish general population: psychometric properties of the Danish version of the Brief Approach/Avoidance Coping Questionnaire.","authors":"Lisa M S Sætre, Isabella P Raasthøj, Dorte E Jarbøl, Kirubakaran Balasubramaniam, Sonja Wehberg, Tina B W Carstensen, Christina M Andersen","doi":"10.1080/08870446.2023.2215263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To enable measurement of coping in the general Danish population the aims of this study are to 1) describe the translation and cultural adaption of the Danish Brief Approach/Avoidance Coping Questionnaire (BACQ) and 2) investigate the psychometric properties of the Danish BACQ.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The BACQ was translated and adapted into Danish, and the psychometric properties tested in two samples of adult Danish citizens: Sample <i>A</i> = 167, used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and Sample <i>B</i> = 330 persons, used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's Alpha, item-to-rest correlation, and scale-to-scale Pearson correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The EFA suggested reasonable fits for both a three-factor and four-factor model, confirmed by the CFA with acceptable goodness-of-fit indices for both models. Using the four-factor-model would require a re-evaluation of the scale. The three-factor model had admissible internal consistency with an overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.66. Individuals with low self-rated health, extreme concern about current health and poor physical fitness, respectively, had lower <i>Approach</i> and higher <i>Diversion</i> and <i>Resignation</i> scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The psychometric properties showed that the Danish BACQ could be used as a three-factor model. With some limitations, the Danish version had acceptable construct validity, internal consistency, and content validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":20718,"journal":{"name":"Psychology & Health","volume":" ","pages":"254-271"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2023.2215263","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To enable measurement of coping in the general Danish population the aims of this study are to 1) describe the translation and cultural adaption of the Danish Brief Approach/Avoidance Coping Questionnaire (BACQ) and 2) investigate the psychometric properties of the Danish BACQ.

Design: The BACQ was translated and adapted into Danish, and the psychometric properties tested in two samples of adult Danish citizens: Sample A = 167, used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and Sample B = 330 persons, used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's Alpha, item-to-rest correlation, and scale-to-scale Pearson correlation.

Results: The EFA suggested reasonable fits for both a three-factor and four-factor model, confirmed by the CFA with acceptable goodness-of-fit indices for both models. Using the four-factor-model would require a re-evaluation of the scale. The three-factor model had admissible internal consistency with an overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.66. Individuals with low self-rated health, extreme concern about current health and poor physical fitness, respectively, had lower Approach and higher Diversion and Resignation scores.

Conclusion: The psychometric properties showed that the Danish BACQ could be used as a three-factor model. With some limitations, the Danish version had acceptable construct validity, internal consistency, and content validity.

丹麦普通人群的应对:丹麦版简略方法/回避应对问卷的心理测量特征。
目的:为了测量普通丹麦人的应对能力,本研究的目的是:1)描述丹麦简短方法/回避应对问卷(BACQ)的翻译和文化适应;2)调查丹麦简短方法/回避应对问卷的心理测量特性。设计:将BACQ翻译成丹麦语,并在两个成年丹麦公民样本中测试心理测量特性:样本A = 167人,用于探索性因素分析(EFA),样本B = 330人,用于验证性因素分析(CFA)。内部一致性通过Cronbach's Alpha、项目-休息相关和量表-量表Pearson相关来评估。结果:EFA显示三因素和四因素模型的拟合都是合理的,CFA证实了这两个模型的拟合优度指标都是可接受的。使用四因素模型需要对量表进行重新评估。三因素模型具有允许的内部一致性,总体Cronbach's alpha为0.66。自我评价健康水平较低、极度关注当前健康状况和身体素质较差的个体,其Approach得分较低,而Diversion和辞呈得分较高。结论:丹麦人的心理测量特征表明,丹麦人的BACQ可以作为一个三因素模型。尽管有一定的局限性,丹麦版本具有可接受的构念效度、内部一致性和内容效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
3.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Psychology & Health promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to health and illness. The contents include work on psychological aspects of physical illness, treatment processes and recovery; psychosocial factors in the aetiology of physical illnesses; health attitudes and behaviour, including prevention; the individual-health care system interface particularly communication and psychologically-based interventions. The journal publishes original research, and accepts not only papers describing rigorous empirical work, including meta-analyses, but also those outlining new psychological approaches and interventions in health-related fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信