Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping – Pilot Version

1. Abstract

The Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping – Pilot Version (ABC-Pilot) is an empirical psychometric instrument developed to evaluate the functional utility of religious and spiritual mechanisms in stress appraisal, psychological adaptation, and coping behavior. Originally conceived by Monique M. Shah (later Kulkarni) and colleagues within the Department of Educational Psychology at The University of Texas at Austin, the instrument bridges general transactional models of stress with multidimensional paradigms of spiritual and religious coping. While many legacy coping batteries either conflate religious beliefs with actual behavioral implementation or measure religiosity merely as institutional frequency, the ABC inventory explicitly disentangles religious and spiritual cognitions from enacted coping behaviors. The instrument measures five primary conceptual dimensions: (a) institutional and ritual structure, (b) community affiliation and social support, (c) normative guidance and value frameworks, (d) relational intimacy with a transcendent higher power, and (e) existential meaning-making and worldview attribution.

Comprising 20 core self-report statements, the pilot inventory prompts participants to evaluate how specific spiritual and religious elements reduce perceived stress, facilitate emotional equilibrium, and support cognitive reappraisal. Items are rated on a standard 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Psychometric investigations demonstrate excellent internal consistency across total and subscale scores, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding .85 and reaching .94 for latent relational and community dimensions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirm a robust multidimensional architecture that maps onto transactional stress frameworks. Construct validity is supported by significant convergent associations with legacy measures such as the Brief RCOPE, the Ways of Coping Questionnaire, and subjective well-being indices, alongside discriminant validity against unrelated personality dimensions. This article provides an exhaustive psychometric exposition of the ABC-Pilot version, analyzing its theoretical underpinnings, structural properties, scoring methodology, and implications for clinical research and psychological assessment.

2. Keywords

Religious coping, spiritual coping, Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping, ABC scale, stress appraisal, transactional model, existential meaning, higher power relationship, psychometrics, coping mechanisms, factor analysis, psychological adaptation

3. Authors

The initial conceptualization, pilot psychometric development, and subsequent structural validation of the Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping (ABC) were spearheaded by Monique M. Shah Kulkarni, Ph.D., under the faculty supervision and collaborative direction of Christopher J. McCarthy, Ph.D., along with contributions from Richard P. Douglas, Ph.D., and Deepti Maheshwari, M.A.

• Monique M. Shah Kulkarni, Ph.D.: Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, The University of Texas at Austin. Primary investigator, psychometrician, and lead developer of the ABC battery as part of her doctoral dissertation research examining religious and spiritual coping mechanisms across demographically diverse populations.
• Christopher J. McCarthy, Ph.D.: Professor of Counseling Psychology, Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin. Director of the Stress and Coping Research Group, recognized for extensive theoretical work on occupational stress, preventive coping, cognitive appraisal, and transactional stress models.
• Richard P. Douglas, Ph.D.: Contributing researcher and co-investigator on preliminary psychometric iterations and symposium presentations assessing spiritual resources in transactional coping environments.
• Deepti Maheshwari, M.A.: Research collaborator involved in initial item development, construct specification, and exploratory factor analytic trials presented at national professional conventions.

Correspondence regarding the initial development and historical iterations of the ABC instrumentation may be directed via institutional archives at The University of Texas at Austin Libraries, Austin, TX 78712, USA.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping – Pilot Version is to provide a psychometrically rigorous, theory-driven diagnostic and research tool that delineates how individuals mobilize religious and spiritual frameworks to mitigate psychological distress. In contemporary clinical and counseling psychology, the intersection of religion, spirituality, and mental health has transitioned from historical pathologization toward an empirical understanding of cognitive, behavioral, and existential coping resources. Despite this transition, psychometric scholarship historically suffered from a critical limitation: the failure to systematically differentiate an individual’s abstract cognitive convictions (beliefs) from their enacted coping practices (behaviors), and the tendency to conflate internalized spiritual connection with institutional church participation.

The ABC-Pilot version was designed to resolve these conceptual ambiguities by operationalizing the specific pathways through which religious and spiritual constructs exert protective effects against perceived stress. The instrument systematically investigates whether relief from psychological demands arises through external institutional structures (such as daily routines, ritual participation, and community obligations), interpersonal social networks (such as congregational belonging and peer validation), internal moral compasses (values and scriptural guidance), dyadic transcendent attachments (personal relationship, comfort, and unconditional acceptance from a higher power), or overarching existential cognitive schemas (worldview coherence, perceived control, and existential meaning). By separating these facets, researchers can pinpoint precisely which elements of a respondent’s belief-behavior architecture are functioning adaptively and which may be failing or missing during acute crises.

In clinical practice, the ABC-Pilot serves as an evaluative intake and intervention-planning instrument. Mental health practitioners operating within culturally responsive, spiritually integrated cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBT) or acceptance-based paradigms can administer the scale to identify client-specific coping assets. For instance, a client exhibiting high endorsement of higher power attachment but negligible scores on institutional structure may benefit more from personalized contemplation and meditative practices than from congregational referrals. Conversely, in academic research settings, the tool enables precise structural equation modeling (SEM) and regression analyses to determine how diverse cultural, ethnic, and developmental cohorts utilize distinct spiritual facets when facing chronic illness, occupational burnout, academic pressure, or traumatic grief.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping – Pilot Version is multidimensional, rooted in the cognitive, behavioral, and affective processes of religious and spiritual adaptation to environmental stressors. Rather than conceptualizing spirituality as a monolithic trait, the instrument delineates five functionally distinct psychological subdomains:

Structure and Ritualized Routine

This dimension operationalizes the behavioral and external organizing framework that organized religious institutions impose on daily life. Stress frequently disrupts an individual’s sense of environmental predictability, producing cognitive overload and executive dysfunction. Institutional religion counters this entropy by embedding the individual within recurring, external regulatory frameworks. The construct encompasses daily schedules, morning or evening prayers, liturgical calendars, sacred rituals, and explicit moral obligations. By automating behavioral responses and providing predictable temporal anchors, these rituals lower the cognitive burden of decision-making under stress and restore functional stability.

Social Network and Community Affiliation

This component evaluates the interpersonal and collective benefits derived from congregational membership. Social support is one of the most thoroughly validated protective buffers in stress research; the ABC scale specifically captures the spiritualized dimension of this buffer. It measures the degree to which an individual experiences a sense of shared worldview, communal belonging, mutual assistance, and validation among peers who hold similar philosophical tenets. In times of crisis, this subscale captures tangible social assistance (such as meal deliveries, visitation during illness) as well as the socio-emotional comfort of communal prayer and collective mourning, attenuating subjective isolation and feelings of alienation.

Normative Values and Ethical Guidance

This dimension assesses the internal cognitive scaffolding provided by formal doctrines, scriptural texts, and pastoral leadership. Stressors frequently introduce profound moral dilemmas, ambiguity, and existential paralysis. Religious systems of values provide pre-established ethical guidelines and moral benchmarks that assist the individual in decision-making and cognitive reappraisal. This construct captures the perceived utility of religious teachings, ethical codes, and pedagogical leadership in simplifying complex life demands, mitigating guilt, and directing adaptive problem-solving.

Transcendent Relationship and Higher Power Attachment

Rooted in psychological attachment theory, this dimension evaluates the internalized, dyadic relationship between the individual and a transcendent entity (variously operationalized as God, Allah, Krishna, the Universe, or a Higher Power). Unlike external sociological factors, this construct measures profound intrapsychic security, encompassing the perceived presence of a loving, nonjudgmental figure that offers unconditional acceptance, sanctuary, emotional solace, and interactive communication. High endorsement reflects an attachment-based coping mechanism where the individual turns to an internal mental representation of a benevolent protector, effectively down-regulating autonomic stress arousal and existential terror.

Cognitive Worldview, Meaning-Making, and Perceived Control

Represented in the scale’s holistic trajectory, this dimension captures the overarching philosophical paradigm that enables an individual to process adverse life events. When individuals encounter catastrophic trauma, systemic injustice, or arbitrary illness, their foundational assumptions regarding benevolence, predictability, and justice are threatened. This construct measures the utility of spiritual schemas in providing global meaning, offering explanatory models for why suffering occurs, maintaining secondary and vicarious control (e.g., yielding to a benevolent divine plan), and re-establishing an integrated life purpose in the aftermath of trauma.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the ABC-Pilot version is grounded in a synthesis of classical stress theory, psychodynamic attachment frameworks, and contemporary psychology of religion. The primary theoretical foundation is the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping formulated by Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984). According to this paradigm, stress is neither an environmental stimulus nor an internal physiological response per se, but rather a dynamic transaction between the individual and the environment. This transaction is mediated by two cognitive processes: primary appraisal (evaluating whether an event is threatening, harmful, or challenging) and secondary appraisal (evaluating available resources to manage the demand).

Within this transactional framework, religious and spiritual cognitions and practices function as critical secondary appraisal resources. An individual possessing robust religious and spiritual coping mechanisms does not perceive environmental demands in a cognitive vacuum; rather, demands are filtered through existential schemas that fundamentally alter primary appraisal (e.g., viewing an illness not as meaningless catastrophe, but as a divinely sanctioned test of resilience) and enhance secondary appraisal (e.g., feeling supported by an omnipotent transcendent ally and an attentive community).

The ABC instrument integrates these transactional principles with the theoretical paradigms of Kenneth I. Pargament (1997), who defined religious coping as the search for significance in times of stress through sacred means. Pargament underscored that religion cannot be reduced to static socio-demographic labels (such as church affiliation or self-identified denomination); it is an active, functional, and unfolding process of cognitive conservation or transformation of meaning. The ABC-Pilot operationalizes Pargament’s thesis by interrogating the explicit utility of specific practices—such as prayer, ritual observances, and moral obligations—in active stress reduction.

Furthermore, the instrument incorporates Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1978), as extended to transcendent relationships by scholars such as Lee A. Kirkpatrick (2005) and Pehr Granqvist. Under this paradigm, God or a Higher Power functions as an attachment figure who serves as a “safe haven” during acute distress and a “secure base” from which to navigate developmental challenges. Items 13 through 16 of the ABC-Pilot directly capture this internal working model, assessing whether the transcendent entity provides unconditional acceptance, profound emotional comfort, and relational safety.

Finally, the scale reflects the Meaning-Making Model articulated by Crystal L. Park (2010). Park posits that psychological distress emerges when an individual’s situational appraisal of a traumatic event severely violates their global meaning system (comprising core beliefs, goals, and sense of purpose). The ABC-Pilot measures the extent to which religious beliefs restore global-situational congruence by providing a worldview that “makes sense of life,” “gives life a sense of meaning,” and explains “why things happen,” thereby alleviating cognitive dissonance and existential despair.

7. Validity

Empirical validation of the Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping (ABC) was established through multiple phases of psychometric testing across undergraduate, community, and clinical cohorts during its dissertation and conference presentations (Shah et al., 2008; Kulkarni, 2012). The validation protocol systematically evaluated construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and structural integrity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established through thorough content review by experts in counseling psychology, psychometrics, and the psychology of religion, ensuring that each item adequately represented specific transactional coping mechanisms without introducing confounding clinical pathology. The theoretical factor structure was verified through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, confirming that the hypothesized dimensions (structure, community, values, relational higher power, and worldview) maintain distinct latent profiles while sharing an underlying higher-order coping core.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated through bivariate Pearson correlations with well-established instruments measuring similar or related psychological constructs. The relational and worldview dimensions of the ABC showed robust positive correlations with the Brief RCOPE Positive Religious Coping subscale (ranging from r = .68 to .82, p < .001), indicating strong convergence with recognized positive religious coping mechanisms. Furthermore, correlations with the Problem-Focused and Emotion-Focused coping subscales of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ) ranged from r = .34 to .52 (p < .01), corroborating the theoretical premise that religious coping functions simultaneously as an emotional down-regulator and a cognitive reappraisal strategy. Moderate positive associations were also documented with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; r = .38 to .46, p < .01), demonstrating that individuals who effectively mobilize these coping beliefs maintain superior subjective well-being under stress.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by evaluating correlations between the ABC and psychometric scales measuring theoretically orthogonal constructs. The ABC subscales demonstrated low, non-significant correlations with indices of general social desirability (e.g., Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale; r values generally < .15, p > .05), confirming that scale endorsement is not merely a manifestation of normative posturing or desire for social approval. Moreover, when correlated against trait anxiety (as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI) and general negative affectivity, correlations remained low to weakly inverse (r = -.12 to -.24), demonstrating that the scale measures adaptive coping capacity rather than general neuroticism or psychological distress.

8. Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the ABC-Pilot demonstrates high levels of internal consistency and temporal stability. In the initial development samples (ranging from N = 250 to N = 550 across pilot phases), internal consistency was rigorously evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, composite reliability indices, and item-total correlations.

Internal Consistency

For the overall 20-item composite inventory, internal consistency reliability is exceptional, yielding an overall Cronbach’s alpha of α = .95 to .96. Across individual subscales, reliability coefficients consistently surpass standard psychometric thresholds (α ≥ .80):

• Institutional Structure and Routine (Items 1–5): Demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from α = .86 to .89. Corrected item-total correlations within this domain ranged between .62 and .76, indicating strong subscale cohesion.
• Social Network and Community (Items 6–9): Exhibited high internal consistency with alpha estimates ranging from α = .88 to .92. Item-total correlations ranged from .71 to .81, confirming that communal belonging represents a highly unified psychometric factor.
• Values and Ethical Guidance (Items 10–12): Produced alpha coefficients between α = .84 and .87, with average inter-item correlations exceeding .65.
• Relationship with Higher Power (Items 13–16): Exhibited the highest single-subdomain internal consistency, with alpha coefficients reaching α = .93 to .95. Corrected item-total correlations for these items were exceptionally robust, ranging from .78 to .88.
• Existential Worldview and Control (Items 17–20): Produced Cronbach’s alphas between α = .85 and .89, demonstrating substantial internal reliability for the cognitive-existential dimension.

Temporal Stability

Test-retest reliability was evaluated over a three-to-four-week interval in a representative sub-sample (n = 84). Pearson stability coefficients (r_tt) ranged from .78 to .86 across the subscales, with the overall scale score exhibiting a stability coefficient of r_tt = .84 (p < .001). These coefficients reflect an ideal psychometric balance: they demonstrate sufficient temporal stability to confirm that the scale captures stable coping cognitive schemas, while remaining sensitive to fluctuations in environmental stressors and spiritual growth interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structural integrity of the ABC was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) during initial item winnowing, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the operationalized dimensions (Shah et al., 2008; Kulkarni, 2012).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the exploratory phase, principal axis factoring with Promax (oblique) rotation was conducted to account for the hypothesized conceptual relationships among religious and spiritual constructs. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy yielded an outstanding index of .94, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly statistically significant (χ²(190) = 4821.34, p < .001), affirming data suitability for matrix decomposition. Factor extraction based on eigenvalues greater than 1.0, scree plot inspection, and parallel analysis identified clear multi-factor solutions that accounted for over 68% of the total cumulative variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic trials tested competing structural models: a single-factor unidimensional model, an uncorrelated orthogonal model, and a correlated five-factor model. The correlated five-factor architecture demonstrated superior model fit indices across maximum likelihood estimations:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .962 (exceeding the ≥ .95 standard for good fit)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .955
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 (90% CI [.041, .056], meeting the < .06 criterion)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .042 (well below the .08 threshold)
• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): 1.74 (indicating minimal structural strain)

Standardized factor loadings across all 20 manifest indicators were statistically significant (p < .001), ranging from .62 to .91, confirming the structural validity of the five dimensions.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping – Pilot Version is a self-administered psychometric questionnaire. Below are the administrative, formatting, and scoring characteristics:

• Instrument Designation: Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping – Pilot Version (ABC-Pilot / ABC-B preliminary).
• Test Format: Standard self-report questionnaire, available in paper-and-pencil or computerized format.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older). Cross-culturally adaptable for various spiritual, theistic, non-theistic, or non-denominational orientations.
• Number of Items: 20 items.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert response scale scored as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale 1: Structure and Routine: Sum or mean of Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Range: 5–25).
  • Subscale 2: Social Community and Network: Sum or mean of Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Range: 4–20).
  • Subscale 3: Values and Guidance: Sum or mean of Items 10, 11, and 12 (Range: 3–15).
  • Subscale 4: Higher Power Relationship: Sum or mean of Items 13, 14, 15, and 16 (Range: 4–20).
  • Subscale 5: Meaning and Worldview: Sum or mean of Items 17, 18, 19, and 20 (Range: 4–20).
  • Total Score: Sum of all 20 items (Range: 20–100). Higher scores denote greater perceived utility and functional reliance on religious/spiritual coping resources in mitigating stress. No items are reverse-scored.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping was initially presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in August 2008 (Boston, MA) and subsequently completed in full psychometric validation through the doctoral dissertation of Monique Shah Kulkarni at The University of Texas at Austin in August 2012.

The instrument is archived within the academic public domain via The University of Texas at Austin Electronic Theses and Dissertations repository (UT Libraries Repository Handle: 2152/ETD-UT-2012-08-6020). As an academic instrument originating from a doctoral dissertation, it is made available free of charge for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scholarly research purposes, provided that proper scholarly citation is attributed to the author and the institution. Commercial application, reproduction within fee-charging assessment batteries, or digital commercial redistribution requires formal written permission from the copyright holder and institutional authorities.

12. References

• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. Guilford Press.
• Kulkarni, M. S. (2012). Initial development and validation of the Assessment of Beliefs and Behaviors in Coping (ABC) (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin). UT Electronic Theses and Dissertations. http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2012-08-6020
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. Guilford Press.
• Pargament, K. I., Feuille, M., & Burdzy, D. (2011). The Brief RCOPE: Current psychometric status of a short measure of religious coping. Religions, 2(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel2010051
• Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning-making model: Its quintessential nature and its current status. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301
• Shah, M. M., Douglas, R. P., Maheshwari, D., & McCarthy, C. J. (2008, August 17). Assessing the role of religion and spirituality in coping with life demands [Poster presentation]. Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA, United States.

13. Items of the Scale