Coping Scale for Children

Abstract

The Coping Scale for Children, structurally known in developmental psychometrics as the Self-Report Coping Measure (SRCM), is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to assess cognitive and behavioral coping responses in elementary and middle school-aged children (typically ages 8 through 14). Developed by Debra L. Causey and Eric F. Dubow (1992), the measure emerged to address critical developmental limitations inherent in adult coping inventories when administered to pediatric populations. The SRCM operationalizes child coping across 29 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert frequency scale ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 5 ("all the time"). It measures five distinct coping dimensions: Problem Solving, Seeking Social Support, Distancing, Internalizing, and Externalizing. These five primary dimensions are conceptually and hierarchically organized into two higher-order coping styles: Approach Coping (active, problem-focused strategies comprising Problem Solving and Seeking Social Support) and Avoidance Coping (strategies oriented away from direct resolution, encompassing Distancing, Internalizing, and Externalizing).

Across extensive psychometric investigations, the Coping Scale for Children has demonstrated robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas typically ranging from .65 to .85 across subscales), commendable two-week test-retest reliability ($r = .58$ to $.78$), and structural stability across exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The scale has demonstrated strong convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity through established associations with childhood anxiety, depressive symptomatology, peer victimization, academic stress, and externalizing behavioral problems. Notably, modern cross-cultural adaptations and clinical extensions—such as investigations into emotion regulation among children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and childhood social anxiety—affirm the instrument’s enduring utility. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the scale’s theoretical underpinnings, psychometric properties, factor structure, scoring paradigms, and clinical applications.

Keywords

Coping Scale for Children, Self-Report Coping Measure, SRCM, pediatric assessment, child coping strategies, approach coping, avoidance coping, psychological resilience, emotion regulation, developmental psychometrics.

Authors

The Coping Scale for Children (Self-Report Coping Measure) was originally formulated and validated by:

• Debra L. Causey, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA. Dr. Causey’s empirical research centered on child clinical psychology, social-cognitive development, peer relationships, and the psychometric measurement of adaptive mechanisms during middle childhood.
• Eric F. Dubow, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA; also affiliated as an Adjunct Research Professor at the Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Dubow is an internationally recognized scholar in developmental psychopathology, contextual risk, aggressive behavior, and children’s stress and coping processes.

Subsequent psychometric adaptations, peer-victimization contextualizations, and cross-cultural European translations have been spearheaded by developmental researchers including Carolien Rieffe, Ph.D. (Leiden University / University of Twente), Mark Wright, Ph.D., and Robin Banerjee, D.Phil. (University of Sussex).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Coping Scale for Children is to systematically identify, categorize, and quantify the cognitive and behavioral strategies that children deploy when confronted with specific or general psychosocial stressors. During middle childhood and early adolescence (roughly grades 3 through 8), individuals experience dramatic shifts in cognitive maturation, social dynamics, peer expectations, and autonomy from primary caregivers. When confronted with interpersonal stressors—such as peer victimization, bullying, social exclusion, academic failure, or familial conflict—children must mobilize self-regulatory and coping strategies. Prior to the development of the SRCM, empirical research on child coping frequently relied either on adult-derived instruments that possessed developmental incongruities (e.g., overly abstract terminology or inadequate representations of childhood emotional expressions) or on behavioral observational methods that missed covert, cognitive coping maneuvers.

To overcome these methodological shortcomings, Causey and Dubow (1992) engineered the SRCM to fulfill several targeted research and clinical objectives:

• Delineating Adaptive versus Maladaptive Responses: By categorizing coping into distinct approach and avoidance subtypes, the instrument allows researchers and clinicians to separate constructive problem-solving and support-seeking initiatives from maladaptive internalizing (e.g., rumination, worry, catastrophic thinking) and externalizing (e.g., verbal aggression, physical property destruction) behaviors.
• Providing Stressor-Specific Contextualization: The scale can be anchored to generic life stress or administered with respect to concrete, ecological vignettes (e.g., "If someone picks on me…" or "When I get a bad grade…"), thereby capturing the contextual variability of coping responses as posited by modern transactional theories of stress.
• Facilitating School-Based Screening and Early Intervention: Due to its brief 29-item format and accessible reading level (designed for elementary reading abilities), the instrument functions as an efficient school-wide or clinical screening tool to pinpoint youth who over-rely on passive avoidance, emotional brooding, or overt behavioral venting.
• Tracking Developmental and Therapeutic Trajectories: In clinical child psychology and pediatric psychiatry, the measure is employed to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), social-emotional learning (SEL) programs, and resilience-building interventions by monitoring shifts from emotional reactivity and behavioral venting toward planful problem-solving and adaptive help-seeking.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the Coping Scale for Children is pediatric coping, operationalized within a multidimensional taxonomy comprising five core primary factors and two higher-order structural domains. Coping is defined as conscious, volitional, cognitive and behavioral efforts managed by an individual to regulate, master, tolerate, or reduce internal and environmental demands created by stressful encounters. The five constituent subscales capture the broad behavioral and cognitive repertoire characteristic of middle childhood:

1. Problem Solving (Approach Coping)

This subscale assesses self-directed, planful cognitive and behavioral actions aimed directly at altering the stressful situation or resolving the underlying dilemma. Items within this factor capture analytical problem appraisal, generation of alternative pathways, proactive implementation of change, and restorative behavioral remediation. Example items include: "I try to think of different ways to solve the problem" (Item 1), "I change something so things will work out" (Item 6), and "I make a plan of what I am going to do" (Item 26). High scores on this subscale reflect superior executive functioning, high self-efficacy, and a proactive agency orientation.

2. Seeking Social Support (Approach Coping)

This dimension operationalizes the child’s relational outreach to social systems (family, peers, educators) for emotional validation, instrumental guidance, or informational aid. Unlike solitary problem solving, social support seeking capitalizes on external attachment figures and interpersonal resources. Indicators include: "I tell a friend or family member what happened" (Item 2), "I talk to somebody about how it made me feel" (Item 7), and "I ask someone in my family for advice" (Item 17). This construct bridges approach coping with relational resilience, reflecting the child’s communicative capacity and trust in relational safety nets.

3. Distancing (Avoidance Coping)

Distancing encompasses cognitive reappraisal, cognitive minimization, and behavioral distraction techniques designed to disengage psychologically from the stressor without resolving it. While historically categorized broadly under avoidance, distancing can serve an emotionally stabilizing function in uncontrollable situations. Strategies span intentional forgetting, cognitive reframing, and substitution activities: "I think that it is not such a big problem" (Item 5), "I watch TV or read a book so I can think about something else" (Item 15), and "I tell myself that the problem is not very important" (Item 19).

4. Internalizing (Avoidance Coping)

The internalizing factor reflects maladaptive, self-focused emotional distress, catastrophizing, repetitive worry, and somatic or sleep-related hyperarousal in reaction to stressors. Rather than neutralizing the threat, internalizing strategies amplify negative emotionality and helplessness: "I worry about it" (Item 4), "I worry that others will think badly of me" (Item 14), "I keep feeling afraid it will happen again" (Item 23), and "I think about it so much that I can’t sleep" (Item 28). This subscale exhibits strong predictive pathways toward childhood major depressive disorder and generalized/social anxiety.

5. Externalizing (Avoidance Coping)

Externalizing represents involuntary or poorly regulated outward affective venting, verbal hostility, and physical aggression directed at environmental objects or individuals. It functions as an impulsive behavioral discharge of emotional tension rather than a constructive resolution: "I yell or shout to let off steam" (Item 3), "I swear (use bad words) out loud" (Item 9), "I get angry and throw or hit something" (Item 13), and "I stamp my feet and slam or bang doors" (Item 22). Chronically high scores correlate with oppositional defiance, disciplinary incidents, and peer rejection.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Coping Scale for Children integrates foundations from cognitive-transactional theories of stress, developmental self-regulation models, and control-based taxonomies.

The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping

The foremost theoretical foundation of the SRCM is the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping formulated by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984). Under this model, coping is not viewed as a stable, static personality trait, but rather as a dynamic, transactional process that unfolds between an individual and their environment. Stress emerges when an encounter is appraised as taxing or exceeding personal adaptive resources. Coping efforts involve two distinct appraisal-driven functional classifications:

• Problem-Focused Coping: Strategies directed at altering or managing the source of the stress (directly reflected in the SRCM’s Problem Solving dimension).
• Emotion-Focused Coping: Strategies directed at regulating the emotional distress triggered by the stressor (captured across the SRCM’s Distancing, Internalizing, and Externalizing dimensions).

Primary vs. Secondary Control Coping Frameworks

Complementing Lazarus and Folkman’s model, the developmental coping taxonomy developed by Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder (1982), and later extended to pediatric populations by Bruce Compas and colleagues (2001), informs the structure of the SRCM:

• Primary Control Coping: Involves efforts aimed at directly influencing objective circumstances through personal agency, planning, and assertive intervention (represented in SRCM Problem Solving).
• Secondary Control Coping: Involves adapting oneself to the environment through cognitive restructuring, positive distraction, or acceptance when conditions cannot be directly modified (represented in SRCM Distancing).
• Disengagement / Involuntary Stress Responses: Represents failures to achieve primary or secondary control, leading to passive resignation, unmodulated emotional brooding, or physical dysregulation (represented in SRCM Internalizing and Externalizing).

Causey and Dubow (1992) recognized that while adults may fluidly navigate nuanced cognitive reappraisals, children’s emerging cognitive structures often lead them to dichotomize stress management into Approach (actively moving toward the threat via problem resolution or social buffering) versus Avoidance (moving away from the threat via cognitive escape, emotional collapse, or behavioral acting-out). Consequently, the SRCM framework maps individual coping behaviors into a hierarchical matrix that accommodates both fine-grained subscale profiling and broad higher-order approach/avoidance classifications.

Validity

The validity of the Coping Scale for Children has been rigorously established across numerous empirical cohorts, spanning normative school-based samples, clinical populations, and cross-cultural cohorts.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially confirmed by Causey and Dubow (1992) across samples of elementary and middle school students. The five-factor structural model accounted for substantial common variance. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have continually substantiated that the five distinct factors load logically onto the two higher-order dimensions: Problem Solving and Seeking Social Support define Approach Coping, whereas Distancing, Internalizing, and Externalizing define Avoidance Coping.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

Convergent validity is documented via robust correlations with standardized behavioral and affective measures:

• Internalizing Coping exhibits robust positive correlations with validated pediatric depression inventories (e.g., Children’s Depression Inventory [CDI], $r = .45$ to $.55, p < .001$) and anxiety inventories (e.g., Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale [RCMAS], $r = .48$ to $.60, p < .001$).
• Externalizing Coping demonstrates moderate-to-strong positive associations with teacher ratings of classroom behavioral disruption, peer nominations of aggression, and parent-reported conduct problems on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) ($r = .35$ to $.50$).
• Problem Solving and Social Support Seeking correlate positively with perceived self-competence, academic achievement, self-esteem (e.g., Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Children), and sociometric popularity among peers.

Discriminant Validity

The scale effectively discriminates between normative coping patterns and clinical manifestations. Wright, Banerjee, Hoek, Rieffe, and Novin (2010) demonstrated differential associations when evaluating social anxiety versus depression in a large pediatric cohort. Their findings indicated that while both depressive and socially anxious symptoms shared elevated Internalizing coping scores, children high in social anxiety specifically displayed lower Seeking Social Support when confronting peer-related dilemmas, isolating unique social-avoidant mechanisms. Furthermore, research by Pouw, Rieffe, Stockmann, and Gadow (2013) demonstrated the instrument’s capacity to discriminate emotion-regulation profiles in boys with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), who relied significantly more on Externalizing and maladaptive Internalizing strategies and less on Seeking Social Support compared to typically developing controls.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Longitudinal studies demonstrate that elevated baseline scores on Internalizing and Externalizing subscales prospectively predict increased psychological maladjustment, peer victimization, and somatic complaints over 6- to 12-month periods, independent of initial symptom severity. Conversely, elevated baseline Problem Solving serves as a documented protective buffer that mitigates the adverse impact of chronic academic and interpersonal stress on emotional well-being.

Reliability

The Coping Scale for Children exhibits satisfactory to high reliability across diverse demographic cohorts, demonstrating strong internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

In the seminal psychometric validation by Causey and Dubow (1992), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the five subscales were reported across both academic and interpersonal stressor conditions:

• Problem Solving: $\alpha = .78$ to $.84$
• Seeking Social Support: $\alpha = .75$ to $.82$
• Distancing: $\alpha = .65$ to $.73$
• Internalizing: $\alpha = .68$ to $.76$
• Externalizing: $\alpha = .70$ to $.78$

When collapsed into higher-order composite indices, internal consistency coefficients increase further, with the composite Approach Coping index routinely yielding $\alpha > .83$ and the Avoidance Coping index yielding $\alpha > .80$. Modern replications (e.g., Wright et al., 2010; Pouw et al., 2013) have corroborated these alpha ranges across international European samples, confirming that the scale maintains linguistic and psychometric integrity when translated and deployed across non-English speaking pediatric populations.

Test-Retest Temporal Stability

Causey and Dubow (1992) assessed test-retest reliability across a two-week interval in elementary school cohorts. Subscale stability coefficients were statistically significant ($p < .001$):

• Problem Solving: $r = .72$
• Seeking Social Support: $r = .78$
• Distancing: $r = .58$
• Internalizing: $r = .67$
• Externalizing: $r = .71$

The slightly lower stability coefficient observed for Distancing ($r = .58$) is consistent with developmental theory, reflecting the contextual fluidity of cognitive distraction techniques during early childhood. Across longer observational windows (e.g., 6 to 12 months), stability coefficients remain moderate ($r = .40$ to $.55$), illustrating that while coping styles show trait-like continuity, they remain sensitive to cognitive development and contextual changes.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional validity of the SRCM has been systematically investigated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

In the original scale construction by Causey and Dubow (1992), an initial pool of candidate items generated from open-ended pediatric coping interviews was subjected to principal components analysis (PCA) with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations across elementary school cohorts ($N > 350$). Item retention was governed by strict empirical criteria: items had to demonstrate primary factor loadings of $ge .40$ on their designated construct and cross-loadings of $le .25$ on alternative factors. This procedure resulted in the retention of the 29 stable items mapping cleanly onto the five primary factors, accounting for over 52% of the total variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Higher-Order Modeling

Subsequent psychometric testing (Wright et al., 2010; Pouw et al., 2013) evaluated competing structural models via confirmatory factor analysis. CFA analyses evaluated three structural hypotheses:

1. A single-factor unidimensional coping model;
2. A primary five-factor orthogonal or oblique model;
3. A hierarchical two-factor model wherein Problem Solving and Seeking Social Support load onto a secondary Approach latent factor, while Distancing, Internalizing, and Externalizing load onto a secondary Avoidance latent factor.

The hierarchical model demonstrated superior fit across standard structural equation modeling indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $ge .92$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $ge .90$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $le .054$ (90% CI [.048, .060])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $le .058$

These findings substantiate that researchers may utilize the Coping Scale for Children at two diagnostic levels: evaluating the five discrete subscales for granular clinical interventions, or utilizing the overarching Approach versus Avoidance composite scores for broader structural and predictive modeling.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Coping Scale for Children / Self-Report Coping Measure is structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Coping Scale for Children (Self-Report Coping Measure — SRCM)
• Primary Authors: Debra L. Causey & Eric F. Dubow (1992)
• Target Population: Children and young adolescents (Ages 8–14; Grades 3 through 8)
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire, digital web-based survey, or structured one-on-one interview format for younger elementary children
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes
• Total Number of Items: 29 items
• Contextual Vignette Prompt: Can be administered under generic stress instructions or tailored to specific scenarios (standard peer-conflict vignette: "If someone picks on me…")
• Response Scale (5-Point Likert Scale):
  • 1 = not at all
  • 2 = hardly ever
  • 3 = sometimes
  • 4 = most of the time
  • 5 = all the time
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Problem Solving (7 items): Items 1, 6, 11, 16, 20, 26, 29
  • Seeking Social Support (4 items): Items 2, 7, 17, 21
  • Distancing (10 items): Items 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27
  • Internalizing (4 items): Items 4, 14, 23, 28
  • Externalizing (4 items): Items 3, 9, 13, 22
• Higher-Order Composite Groupings:
  • Approach Coping: Mean or sum score of Problem Solving and Seeking Social Support
  • Avoidance Coping: Mean or sum score of Distancing, Internalizing, and Externalizing
• Scoring Procedures: Subscale scores are calculated by averaging or summing the numerical ratings across the respective item sets. There are no reverse-scored items. Higher scores reflect greater frequency of utilizing that specific coping strategy. Standardized z-scores or T-scores can be derived using age- and gender-specific normative cohorts.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Coping Scale for Children (Self-Report Coping Measure) was originally published in 1992 in the Journal of Clinical Child Psychology (now the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology). The instrument was placed in the academic and scientific domain by its authors for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scientific research purposes. Consequently, no licensing fees or commercial royalties are required for standard academic or mental health utilization.

Researchers and practitioners wishing to implement the scale in clinical or school settings may reproduce the items provided appropriate bibliographic citation is accorded to Causey and Dubow (1992). Digital representations, European Dutch-English translations, and clinical child research adaptations are maintained and made accessible through academic repositories such as the Focus on Emotions research laboratory (Focus on Emotions), directed by Prof. Carolien Rieffe and colleagues. Commercial test distributors seeking to package the measure within proprietary diagnostic suites must contact the copyright holder (Taylor & Francis / Routledge) for contractual permissions.

References

• Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 21(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2101_8
• Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Pouw, L. B. C., Rieffe, C., Stockmann, L., & Gadow, K. D. (2013). The link between emotion regulation, social functioning, and depression in boys with ASD. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(4), 549–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.01.006
• Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.5
• Wright, M., Banerjee, R., Hoek, W., Rieffe, C., & Novin, S. (2010). Depression and social anxiety in children: Differential links with coping strategies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9375-4

Items of the Scale