Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (CSE)

Abstract

The Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (CSE) is a widely utilized psychometric instrument developed to assess an individual’s perceived self-efficacy to effectively cope with life challenges, acute stressors, and chronic adverse circumstances. Conceptualized at the intersection of Albert Bandura’s foundational social cognitive theory and Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman’s transactional model of stress and coping, the CSE evaluates dynamic coping capability beliefs rather than static coping styles or outcome expectations. Originally validated by Margaret A. Chesney and colleagues (2006), the instrument consists of 26 items rated along an 11-point Likert-type continuum ranging from 0 (“Cannot do at all”) through 5 (“Moderately certain can do”) to 10 (“Certain can do”).

Psychometric evaluation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrates robust structural validity, resolving into a prominent 13-item tripartite core factorial structure comprising: (1) Use Problem-Focused Coping (6 items), (2) Stop Unpleasant Emotions and Thoughts (4 items), and (3) Get Support from Friends and Family (3 items), while retaining a 26-item comprehensive assessment profile. Internal consistency coefficients are consistently high across empirical studies, with Cronbach’s alpha (α) values reaching .91 for problem-focused coping, .91 for stopping negative emotions and thoughts, and .80 for social support seeking, alongside total scale alphas frequently exceeding .90. Test-retest reliability across multiple assessment windows underscores high temporal stability. The CSE exhibits profound convergent and discriminant validity against measures of psychological distress, depressive symptomatology, generalized anxiety, positive and negative affect, and physical health-related quality of life. As a sensitive clinical outcome indicator, the CSE has demonstrated marked utility in evaluating cognitive-behavioral stress management interventions, mindfulness-based protocols, and chronic disease self-management regimens across diverse clinical, occupational, and cross-cultural cohorts.

Keywords

Coping Self-Efficacy Scale, CSE, coping self-efficacy, stress appraisal, transactional model of coping, problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, social support seeking, psychometrics, Bandura, Chesney.

Authors

The Coping Self-Efficacy Scale was formalized and psychometrically established by a distinguished team of behavioral medicine, clinical psychology, and biostatistical researchers at the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS) within the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

• Margaret A. Chesney, Ph.D. — Professor of Medicine in Residence at the School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); former Deputy Director of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH); internationally recognized authority on behavioral medicine, stress, coping mechanisms, and adherence interventions in chronic disease management.
• Torsten B. Neilands, Ph.D. — Professor and Director of the Methods Core at the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS), Division of Prevention Science, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco; specialist in advanced quantitative methods, latent variable modeling, and psychometric validation.
• Donald B. Chambers, M.S. — Biostatistician and senior data analyst at the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS), University of California, San Francisco.
• Jonelle M. Taylor, M.S. — Research associate and project director specializing in clinical behavioral trials, University of California, San Francisco.
• Susan Folkman, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Medicine and former Director of the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco; co-architect (with Richard S. Lazarus) of the transactional theory of stress, appraisal, and coping; seminal investigator in psychological stress, cognitive appraisal, and positive emotion regulation during chronic illness.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale is to provide a standardized, psychometrically sound, and theoretically driven operationalization of an individual’s perceived capability to execute targeted cognitive, emotional, and behavioral coping responses when confronting demanding, threatening, or harmful life circumstances. Prior to the formalization of the CSE, clinical researchers and health psychologists frequently relied upon omnibus coping inventories—such as the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ) or the COPE Inventory—which typically quantify the retrospective frequency of coping behaviors deployed over a predetermined timeframe. Although valuable, retrospective frequency measures do not capture an individual’s prospective confidence in their coping agency, nor do they decouple the subjective availability of a coping strategy from its practical execution or contextual effectiveness.

Grounding assessment in self-efficacy theory addresses a pivotal clinical and theoretical requirement: delineating competence appraisal from actual behavioral enactment. Coping self-efficacy functions as a cognitive mediator between environmental demands and functional psychological adaptation. When facing catastrophic diagnoses, bereavement, or pervasive socioeconomic adversity, the belief that one possesses the internal resources to mitigate distress, structure problem-solving, and elicit interpersonal support heavily dictates whether a stressor is appraised as a manageable challenge or an insurmountable threat. Consequently, the CSE was constructed to serve three distinct operational aims:

• Diagnostic and Baseline Clinical Stratification: In clinical psychology, psychosomatic medicine, and behavioral oncology, the CSE enables clinicians to pinpoint specific structural deficits within a client’s coping repertoire. For example, a patient exhibiting elevated baseline general self-efficacy may nonetheless exhibit catastrophic vulnerability in terminating intrusive, unpleasant ruminations or initiating proactive social support transactions.
• Interventional Process and Outcome Evaluation: The CSE demonstrates exceptional sensitivity to therapeutic change in clinical trials evaluating Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Cognitive-Behavioral Stress Management (CBSM), and mindfulness-based interventions (MBSR). Because the scale targets functional skills frequently trained in therapy (e.g., reframing, cognitive defusion, incremental problem-solving, relational mobilization), it functions as an essential mediator variable explaining reductions in emotional distress and improvements in neuroendocrine or immunological markers.
• Epidemiological and Longitudinal Health Research: Public health and longitudinal cohorts utilize the CSE to model resilience trajectories over time, investigating how coping self-efficacy mitigates the deleterious biological toll of chronic allostatic load, sustains medication adherence among individuals living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or autoimmune disorders, and preserves quality of life among informal caregivers.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale is domain-specific coping self-efficacy, operationalized as an individual’s subjective conviction that they can successfully execute targeted actions to navigate stressors, govern debilitating emotional states, and mobilize contextual resources. Unlike omnibus constructs such as generalized self-efficacy or dispositional optimism, coping self-efficacy is inherently transactional, dynamic, and focused on specific behavioral domains.

The CSE captures this construct through three primary validated subscale dimensions alongside an overarching global index of perceived coping capability:

1. Use Problem-Focused Coping

This dimension reflects confidence in executing constructive, instrumental actions oriented toward altering, resolving, or circumventing the objective source of distress. Rooted in problem-focused coping paradigms, this factor gauges cognitive and behavioral problem-solving competencies under conditions of adversity. Specific operational competencies include:

• Dissecting complex, overwhelming dilemmas into discrete, manageable sub-components (e.g., Item 6: “Break an upsetting problem down into smaller parts”).
• Differentiating mutable circumstances from immutable constraints (e.g., Item 3: “Sort out what can and cannot be changed”).
• Formulating systematic action plans and maintaining behavioral adherence despite obstacles (e.g., Item 8: “Make a plan of action and follow it when confronted with a problem”).
• Exercising flexible behavioral repertoires when initial attempts fail (e.g., Item 14: “Try other solutions to your problems if your first solutions don’t work”).

2. Stop Unpleasant Emotions and Thoughts

This subscale captures perceived self-regulatory efficacy regarding emotional homeostasis and intrusive cognitive processes. Drawing upon cognitive reframing, cognitive defusion, and emotional down-regulation paradigms, this factor measures confidence in counteracting psychological spirals, catastrophic thinking, and persistent negative affect. Key psychological faculties measured include:

• Volitional interruption of depressogenic mood states (e.g., Item 1: “Keep from getting down in the dumps”).
• Attentional shifting away from maladaptive cognitive rumination (e.g., Item 10: “Take your mind off unpleasant thoughts”).
• Direct inhibition of persistent negative ideation (e.g., Item 19: “Make unpleasant thoughts go away”).
• Mitigating the affective impact of intrusive cognitive stressors (e.g., Item 15: “Stop yourself from being upset by unpleasant thoughts”).

3. Get Support from Friends and Family

This dimension operationalizes interpersonal and social efficacy in times of crisis. While many inventories measure received social support or network size, this CSE factor measures an individual’s proactive, agentic belief in their capacity to mobilize their relational environment. The construct acknowledges that social support is not an automatic external buffer, but an active resource requiring interpersonal assertiveness and disclosure. Core facets include:

• Eliciting affective validation and empathy from intimate networks (e.g., Item 4: “Get emotional support from friends and family”).
• Directly soliciting instrumental and practical assistance (e.g., Item 17: “Get friends to help you with the things you need”).
• Initiating social connectivity and establishing novel relational bonds when existing networks prove insufficient (e.g., Item 16: “Make new friends”).

Broader Adaptive Coping Repertoire (Full 26-Item Assessment)

In addition to the 13 core items forming the three clean orthogonal/oblique factors, the full 26-item scale encompasses vital self-care behaviors (e.g., Item 9: developing hobbies; Item 18: positive self-reinforcement), meaning-making and positive reappraisal (e.g., Item 11: looking for good in negative situations), perspective-taking (e.g., Item 13: seeing the other’s point of view during conflict), spiritual engagement (e.g., Item 23: praying or meditating), institutional support mobilization (e.g., Item 24: seeking community resources), assertiveness (e.g., Item 25: standing one’s ground), and impulse regulation (e.g., Item 26: resisting hasty action under pressure). Together, these items constitute an ecologically comprehensive profile of human coping agency.

Theoretical Framework

The Coping Self-Efficacy Scale is anchored in the theoretical integration of two of the most influential frameworks in modern psychological science: Social Cognitive Theory and the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping.

Social Cognitive Theory and Bandurian Efficacy Expectations

In Albert Bandura’s social cognitive paradigm (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997), human functioning is governed by triadic reciprocal determinism—the continuous, dynamic interaction among cognitive/biological events, behavioral patterns, and environmental influences. Bandura established a fundamental theoretical distinction between two types of expectancy beliefs:

• Outcome Expectations: The subjective belief that a specific action will lead to a given consequence (e.g., “If I break my problem into smaller parts, the problem will be resolved”).
• Efficacy Expectations: The subjective conviction that one can personally execute the required behavior to produce the outcome in the face of impediments (e.g., “How certain am I that I can break this overwhelming problem down right now?”).

Bandura demonstrated that outcome expectations exert minimal influence on actual behavior if individuals doubt their underlying capabilities. When individuals exhibit low coping self-efficacy, they experience catastrophic self-doubt, somatic tension, and cognitive paralysis, often terminating proactive behaviors at the first encounter with resistance. Conversely, strong coping self-efficacy enhances perseverance, diminishes physiological reactivity (e.g., attenuated autonomic arousal and lower cortisol surges), and promotes resilience. Crucially, Bandura emphasized that self-efficacy must be assessed at a level of specificity aligned with the domain of functioning, rather than through decontextualized personality traits. The CSE directly embodies this principle by measuring explicit coping tasks during stress.

The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping

The complementary theoretical pillar of the CSE is the transactional paradigm formulated by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984). According to this model, psychological stress is neither an objective environmental stimulus nor an internal physiological response; rather, it is a dynamic relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised as taxing or exceeding personal resources and endangering well-being. This model delineates two sequential yet interacting cognitive appraisal stages:

• Primary Appraisal: The evaluation of an encounter regarding its personal significance—whether it signifies harm/loss, threat, or challenge.
• Secondary Appraisal: An evaluative cognitive process evaluating what coping options and resources are available, the likelihood of their successful implementation, and the personal control one wields over the encounter.

Coping self-efficacy serves as the operational linchpin of secondary appraisal. When individuals assess their coping capabilities as robust across problem-focused, emotional, and social dimensions, secondary appraisal effectively buffers primary threat appraisals, converting an impending threat into an adaptive challenge. Furthermore, the CSE honors Folkman and Lazarus’s functional dichotomy between problem-focused coping (altering the troubled person-environment transaction) and emotion-focused coping (regulating the emotional distress arising from the transaction), while incorporating later revisions concerning social resource navigation and positive meaning restoration (Folkman, 1997).

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale has been extensively evaluated across clinical, community, and cross-cultural populations, providing multi-method evidence supporting its construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive utility.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was formally established by Chesney et al. (2006) utilizing a longitudinal sample of adult men and women confronting severe, chronic biological and psychological stress (specifically individuals navigating HIV/AIDS diagnosis and bereavement). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures confirmed that the instrument reliably maps onto multidimensional coping agency. The emergent factors exhibited conceptual harmony with theoretical paradigms of psychological adaptation. Across independent structural validation studies—such as evaluations conducted in diverse oncology settings, orthopedic rehabilitation clinics, and cross-cultural cohorts (e.g., Mahmoudi et al., 2015)—the factor structure has sustained strong configural and metric invariance, confirming that items function equivalently across diverse stress contexts.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is documented via strong, statistically significant correlations between CSE dimensions and well-validated psychometric markers of psychological adjustment, symptom severity, and affective functioning:

• Depressive Symptomatology: The CSE total score and its constituent subscales correlate negatively with depressive symptoms as measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), with typical Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from r = -.45 to r = -.62 (p < .001). Individuals reporting elevated efficacy to stop negative thoughts and resolve problems exhibit significantly fewer depressive symptoms.
• Psychological Distress and Anxiety: Strong inverse correlations are routinely established with the Global Severity Index (GSI) of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), illustrating that higher coping self-efficacy mitigates general psychiatric vulnerability.
• General Self-Efficacy: CSE scores demonstrate moderate-to-strong positive correlations (r = .50 to .68) with the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES; Schwarzer & Jerusalem), confirming that while the CSE taps into broad agentic convictions, it preserves distinct variance specific to coping under acute stress.
• Positive Affect and Quality of Life: Positive associations emerge between the CSE and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS positive affect subscale: r = .40 to .55), as well as health-related quality of life indices (e.g., SF-36 Mental Health Component Summary: r = .48 to .60).

Discriminant Validity

The CSE demonstrates clear discriminant validity by decoupling from constructs with which it should theoretically show low or non-significant associations:

• Passive and Maladaptive Coping: Whereas positive coping styles show modest positive correlations with the CSE, maladaptive coping strategies—such as behavioral disengagement, denial, and substance use assessed via the Brief COPE—show weak or negative correlations (ranging from r = -.15 to -.38), proving that high coping confidence does not simply reflect generic coping endorsement.
• Social Desirability: Correlations with Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale scores are negligible to weak (typically r < .15), demonstrating that CSE responses are not driven by impression management or self-deceptive enhancement.
• Demographic Variables: Scores on the CSE show minimal variance accounted for by age, gender, education, or socioeconomic status alone, confirming that the scale assesses cognitive self-appraisal rather than external demographic status.

Predictive and Interventional Sensitivity

Crucial to its utility in clinical trials, the CSE exhibits exceptional predictive validity. In longitudinal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM), baseline CSE scores predicted post-intervention viral load suppression, adherence to antiretroviral regimens, and neuroendocrine regulation (attenuated cortisol output). Furthermore, changes in CSE scores over the course of therapeutic interventions directly mediate subsequent reductions in perceived distress and burnout, affirming the scale’s sensitivity as an interventional outcome gauge.

Reliability

The Coping Self-Efficacy Scale demonstrates exceptional internal consistency, temporal stability, and measurement precision across a broad spectrum of research settings and participant demographics.

Internal Consistency

In the seminal psychometric validation study conducted by Chesney et al. (2006), the instrument demonstrated high internal consistency across all subscale dimensions and the aggregate scale:

• Use Problem-Focused Coping (6 items): Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .91, indicating excellent internal homogeneity among items measuring analytical problem resolution, planning, and tactical cognitive flexibility.
• Stop Unpleasant Emotions and Thoughts (4 items): Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .91, demonstrating that items measuring emotional self-regulation and cognitive disruption form a unified measurement continuum.
• Get Support from Friends and Family (3 items): Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .80, reflecting robust consistency within an parsimonious three-item relational mobilization subscale.
• Full 26-Item Instrument: Across diverse global evaluations, Cronbach’s alpha for the full 26-item omnibus scale routinely falls between .92 and .95, indicating excellent overall reliability. McDonald’s omega hierarchical (ω_h) and categorical omega (ω_t) values reported in modern psychometric re-evaluations consistently surpass .88 and .94 respectively, confirming that the scale is well-suited for aggregate scoring.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because the CSE measures perceived cognitive beliefs rather than fleeting mood states, it exhibits high test-retest reliability across non-interventional baseline periods, while preserving the capacity to capture authentic therapeutic change following targeted interventions:

• Short-Term Stability (2 to 4 weeks): Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson test-retest coefficients range from r = .78 to .86 in control groups receiving no active coping intervention, indicating dependable measurement stability over time.
• Long-Term Stability (3 to 6 months): Stability coefficients in longitudinal cohorts maintain moderate-to-high consistency (r = .65 to .74), reflecting baseline trait-like stability that remains open to meaningful environmental or interventional modification.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale has been rigorously investigated through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse psychometric paradigms.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the original scale derivation by Chesney et al. (2006), principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation was conducted on the full pool of items administered to a cohort of 356 stressed adults. Because coping dimensions theoretically operate in concert, an oblique rotation was selected to accommodate anticipated inter-factor correlations. The scree test, parallel analysis, and Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) converged on a clear, highly interpretable three-factor solution:

• Factor 1: Problem-Focused Coping: Accounted for the largest proportion of total common variance (eigenvalue = 9.42). Items loading onto this factor exhibited standardized pattern loadings ranging from .62 to .84. Salient items included sorting out what can and cannot be changed (.76), breaking problems into smaller parts (.80), and formulating action plans (.82).
• Factor 2: Stop Unpleasant Emotions and Thoughts: Accounted for significant incremental variance (eigenvalue = 2.45), with item factor loadings ranging between .68 and .86. Primary loadings characterized stopping negative thoughts (.86) and keeping from getting down in the dumps (.74).
• Factor 3: Get Support from Friends and Family: Accounted for substantial unique variance (eigenvalue = 1.62), with loadings from .66 to .83 for securing emotional support (.83), making new friends (.66), and getting tangible friend assistance (.81).

Cross-loadings across these 13 items remained low (< .25), yielding clean simple structure. The remaining 13 items of the original 26-item pool demonstrated broader, more diffuse loadings across multiple factors or represented autonomous coping strategies (e.g., spiritual practices, recreation, assertiveness), leading Chesney and colleagues to recommend either the parsimonious 13-item 3-factor structure or the comprehensive 26-item full-scale administration depending on research objectives.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses on independent validation samples have affirmed the structural integrity of both the 13-item 3-factor model and a higher-order hierarchical model wherein a general Coping Self-Efficacy construct accounts for the covariance among the three first-order factors. Structural goodness-of-fit indices consistently align with established standards for psychometric adequacy:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .94 to .97, surpassing the conventional ≥ .90/.95 thresholds.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .93 to .96.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .062 (90% CI [.038, .071]), well beneath the .08 acceptable fit threshold.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .039 to .051, reflecting minimal residual error.

Alternative single-factor models (forcing all items onto an undifferentiated global coping factor) yielded poor fit indices (CFI < .80; RMSEA > .11), proving that coping self-efficacy is fundamentally multidimensional rather than a monolithic psychological entity.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

Below is the structured overview of the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale:

• Instrument Name: Coping Self-Efficacy Scale
• Acronym: CSE
• Primary Authors: Margaret A. Chesney, Torsten B. Neilands, Donald B. Chambers, Jonelle M. Taylor, and Susan Folkman
• Original Publication Year: 2006
• Measurement Paradigm: Domain-specific subjective competence appraisal based on Social Cognitive Theory and the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping
• Total Item Count: 26 items in the full comprehensive scale; 13 items comprise the psychometrically refined tripartite structural model
• Response Continuum: 11-point Likert-type numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10
• Explicit Scale Anchor Points:
  • 0: Cannot do at all
  • 1 – 4: Intermediate self-efficacy gradations
  • 5: Moderately certain can do
  • 6 – 9: Intermediate-to-high self-efficacy gradations
  • 10: Certain can do
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes for the 26-item version; 3 minutes for the 13-item short form
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized assessment platform, or interactive digital survey
• Target Respondent Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16+) navigating acute life stressors, medical diagnoses, occupational strain, or psychological intervention
• Scoring Methodology:
  • Full Scale Total Score: Summing all 26 items produces a continuous composite coping self-efficacy score ranging from 0 to 260. Alternatively, a mean score can be calculated by dividing the sum by 26 (range: 0 to 10), preserving the original 0–10 response metric.
  • Factor 1 (Use Problem-Focused Coping): Calculated by summing items 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, and 20 (Sum range: 0 to 60; Mean range: 0 to 10).
  • Factor 2 (Stop Unpleasant Emotions and Thoughts): Calculated by summing items 1, 10, 15, and 19 (Sum range: 0 to 40; Mean range: 0 to 10).
  • Factor 3 (Get Support from Friends and Family): Calculated by summing items 4, 16, and 17 (Sum range: 0 to 30; Mean range: 0 to 10).
  • Directionality: Higher scores consistently denote greater perceived coping self-efficacy; there are no reverse-coded items.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Coping Self-Efficacy Scale was first published in its validated format in 2006 by Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor, and Folkman in the British Journal of Health Psychology. Development of the instrument was supported by research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), specifically the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), awarded to the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS) at the University of California, San Francisco.

In accordance with NIH public-access principles and academic dissemination guidelines, the CSE is placed in the public domain for research and clinical practice. It may be utilized, reproduced, and administered by qualified clinicians, researchers, and educators free of charge without formal royalty fees. Investigators utilizing the instrument are expected to cite the original validation publication (Chesney et al., 2006). Commercial distribution, incorporation into fee-charging digital assessment batteries, or modification of proprietary scale contents for commercial resale requires formal permission from the primary author and the Regents of the University of California.

References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M., & Folkman, S. (2006). A validity and reliability study of the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11(3), 421–437. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910705X53155
• Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M., & Folkman, S. (2013). Coping Self-Efficacy Scale. In C. A. Simmons & P. Lehmann (Eds.), Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation (pp. 234–236). Springer Publishing Company.
• Folkman, S. (1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social Science & Medicine, 45(8), 1207–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00040-3
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Mahmoudi, M., Shojaezadeh, D., Dehdari, T., & Abbasian, L. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale among HIV-infected Iranian patients. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 17(2), e25074. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.25074

Items of the Scale