Preliminary Psychometric Characteristics of the Cystic Fibrosis Coping Self‐Efficacy (CF‐CSE) Scale

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the preliminary psychometric characteristics of the Cystic Fibrosis Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (CF-CSE), a new measure of coping self-efficacy assessing confidence in one's ability to cope with challenges of living with cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: Measure development included cognitive testing with people with CF who participated in a pilot trial of CF-CBT, a CF-specific cognitive behavioral therapy skills-based intervention. Data were then collected from a baseline assessment in a multi-center randomized-controlled trial of CF-CBT for adults with mild symptoms of depression and/or anxiety (N = 60). Multitrait analysis was used to evaluate how individual CF-CSE items loaded on five hypothesized subscales, followed by assessment of subscale internal consistency and construct validity. RESULTS: Multitrait analysis supported retention of four subscales (21 items total; 4-7 items each) reflecting coping skill domains: Acceptance-Based Strategies/Self-Compassion, Cognitive Coping, Active Stress Management, and Coping with Daily Self-Care. Each scale had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach ⍺ = 0.81 to 0.90). Medium to large effect-size (ES) correlations were found for all CF-CSE subscales with self-reported Perceived Stress Scale scores, and medium to large ES correlations for all subscales with Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) Emotional Functioning. There were medium ES correlations between the Coping with Daily Self-Care subscale and CFQ-R Social and Role Functioning and Health Perceptions. CONCLUSION: CF-CSE is a new CF-specific measure of coping self-efficacy with preliminary evidence of reliability and construct validity. It offers a promising strengths-based patient-reported outcome measure identifying targets for clinical intervention and evaluating outcomes in CF mental health care.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.