The Resilience, Adaptation and

Well-Being Project

Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation

Scales

F-COPES

Email: [email protected] Website: www.mccubbinresilience.org

F-COPES:
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales

Overview
The Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F-COPES), developed by Hamilton
McCubbin, David Olson, and Andrea Larsen (1981), was created to identify problem solving and
behavioral strategies utilized by families in difficult or problematic situations. F
COPES draws upon the coping dimensions of the Resiliency Model of Family Adjustment and
Adaptation in which the following factors are integrated: pile-up, family resources, and
meaning/perception. F-COPES are available in English, Spanish, Hebrew, and French.

The instrument features 30 coping behavior items which focus on the two levels of
interaction outlined in the Resiliency Model: (1) Individual to family system, or the ways a
family internally handles difficulties and problems between its members; and (2) Family to
social environment, or the ways in which the family externally handles problems or demands
that emerge outside its boundaries, but affect the family unit and its members. It was
hypothesized that families operating with more coping behaviors focused on both levels of
interaction will adapt to stressful situations more successfully.

Development of F-COPES
The active process of family adaptation involving coping strategies within the family and family
coping patterns in transactions with the community, have received limited attention in both
research and theory building.
Family resources (Hill's B factor, 1958) include the family's use of social support
networks, such as extended family members (Caplan, 1974), friends, and neighbors (Litwak &
Szelenyl, 1969). The family's approach to problem solving (Aldous et al., 1971; Klein & Hill,
1979) is another factor that can be included as a family resource.
The meaning a family attaches to a stressful situation, or the family's appraisal of the
situation, may also serve as part of the family's coping behavior. Incidents that eventually lead
to breakdown dysfunction may depend upon the presence or absence of explanations which help
the family to make sense of what happened, why it happened and how one's social environment
can be arranged to overcome the undesirable situation. The application of social meaning to a
situation renders stressful situations less irrational, less unacceptable, and more understandable
in the context of the situation in which they occur (Gerhardt, 1979).
Investigations have revealed that the family coping strategy is not created in a single
instant, but is progressively modified over time. Such behavior involves the management of
various dimensions of family life simultaneously: maintaining satisfactory internal conditions
for communication and family organization; promoting member independence and self-
esteem; maintenance of family bonds of coherence and unity; maintenance and development
of social supports in transactions with the community; and maintenance of some efforts to
control the impact of the stressor and the amount of change in the family unit. These are
examples in family life that may require simultaneous management.
F-COPES was designed to integrate family resources and the meaning perception
factors identified in family stress theory (Burr, 1973; Hansen & Hill, 1964; H.I.
McCubbin & Patterson, 1982b, 1983a) into coping strategies. A review of the literature relating
to coping theory and research, as well as other inventories, such as the Family Coping
Inventory (FCI) and the Coping Health Inventory for Parents (CHIP), were first steps in the
construction of the instrument. Consequently, 49 items were generated and later pretested using
a convenience sample of 119 family members representing all stages of the life cycle.
Each respondent completed a questionnaire, rating items on a five-point Likert scale
indicating the extent to which they agreed or disagreed. When these data were analyzed for
clarity and variance, the number of items was reduced to 30. Following the initial data analysis,
factor analytic procedures were used to determine the underlying dimensions. Eight scales
emerged which were grouped into two dimensions: internal and external family coping patterns.
The term internal family coping patterns or strategies defines the way individual family·
members handle difficulties by using resources residing within the nuclear system. External
family strategies or coping patterns are the active behaviors the family employs to acquire
resources outside the nuclear system.
Of the total 8 scales, there were three scales categorized under the heading of Internal
Family Coping Patterns. (1) Confidence in Problem Solving consisted of four items reflecting
the family’s appraisal of problems and their sense of mastery in dealing with unexpected events.
Its internal reliability was .70 (Cronbach's alpha). (2) Reframing Family Problems, also
composed of four items, related to the family's perceptual orientation toward stressful
experiences or whether the family viewed change positively, negatively or more neutrally.
Its internal reliability was .64 (Cronbach’s alpha). (3) Family Passivity, another 4-item scale,
focused on inactive or passive behaviors a family might employ, such as avoidance
responses based on a lack of confidence in one's ability to alter the outcome. This scale had an
internal reliability of .66 (Cronbach's alpha).
Of the 8 total scales, five scales composed the External Family Coping Patterns section of
the instrument. (1) Church /Religious Resources, a 4-item scale which reflected the
family's involvement with religious activities and ideology in dealing with difficulties. The
internal reliability for this scale was .87 (Cronbach's alpha). (2) Extended Family, a 4-item scale,
focused on obtaining support by communicating and doing things with relatives. Its internal
reliability equaled .86 (Cronbach's alpha). (3) Friends, a 4-item scale emphasizing involvement
with friends to obtain social support had an internal reliability of .74 (Cronbach’s alpha). (4)
Neighbors contained three behavior items which centered around receiving help and support
from individuals within the community. Its internal reliability was .79 (Cronbach's alpha). (5)
Community Resources, the last in the total of eight scales, contained three behavior items
which emphasized the utilization of neighborhood agencies and programs, such as counseling
services and physicians. The internal reliability for Community Resources was .70 (Cronbach’s
alpha). The overall reliability for the entire instrument was .77 (Cronbach's alpha).

Conceptual Organization
Coping strategies were identified from the family coping literature and a pilot instrument
consisting of 49 items was constructed. This process ensured the inclusion of key items
highlighted in past research on the topic of coping, as well as introduced new strategies
considered important by the research team.
A sample (N=119) was drawn from a university class with a combined population of
undergraduate and graduate students. Factor analysis with varimax rotation was completed on
the 49 items with eight strong factors emerging. The 49-item list was reduced to 30. The
eight factors had eigenvalues greater than one and each of the 30 items had a factor loading
greater than .38. Cronbach's alpha was computed on each, factor separately and on the total
scale. The alpha reliability for the entire scale was .77.
An additional sample (N=2740) was obtained and randomly split into two halves,
described as Samples 1 and 2. In this study, factor analysis was used to further condense the
number of factors to 5, and this structure has been used in all subsequent research.

F-COPES Scales

I. Acquiring Social Support. Nine items measure a family's ability to actively engage in
acquiring support from relatives, friends, neighbors and extended family. Items: 1, 2, 5,
8, 10, 16, 20, 25, 29.

II. Reframing. This dimension with eight items, assesses the family's capability to
redefine stressful events in order to make them more manageable. Items: 3, 7, 11, 13,
15, 19, 22, 24.

III. Seeking Spiritual Support. Four items focus on the family’s ability to acquire spiritual
support. Items: 14, 23, 27, 30.

IV. Mobilizing Family to Acquire and Accept Help. The family's ability to seek out
community resources and accept help from others is measured by these four items.
Items: 4, 6, 9, 21.

V. Passive Appraisal. Four items assess the family's ability to accept problematic issues
minimizing reactivity. (*These items must be reversed when scoring.) Items: 12*, 17*,
26*, 28*.

Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each factor separately and for the total scale on Sample #1.
The same procedures were calculated on the second sample which replicated the findings. The
overall alpha reliability for Sample #1 is .86. For Sample #2 the overall alpha reliability is .87.
The five individual factors’ alpha reliabilities are listed in Table 15.1.
 Table 15.1
F-COPES: Alpha Reliabilities and Test-Retest for Final Scale

Cronbach's Alpha
Combined Test-
Sample #1 Sample #2 Scales Retest
(N=1338) (N=I244) (N=2582) (N=1l6)
Acquiring Social Support .84 .83 .83 .78
Reframing .82 .81 .82 .61
Seeking Spiritual Support .79 .81 .80 .95
Mobilizing Family to Acquire & .71 .70 .71 .78
Accept Help
Passive Appraisal .64 .62 .63 .75
Total Scale .86 .87 .86 .81

Validity
With this additional sample (N=2740), the results were replicated along with reliability and
validity checks. Husbands, wives and adolescents were pooled and the total sample was
randomly split into two halves, Sample #1 and Sample #2. Factor analyses using varimax
rotation were completed first on Sample #1 which identified 5 strong factors. The factor
structure for Sample 2 replicated the initial factor analyses.

Test-Retest Reliability
A test-retest reliability study was conducted during November and December of 1981. The time
lapse between the first and second administration was four to five weeks. The
questionnaire was administered by undergraduate, graduate and high school students who were
taking courses in psychology and family studies. Researchers attempted to select participants
who were not involved in family studies coursework in an effort to prevent contamination
problems with item responses. Those administering the questionnaires were also instructed not
to inform participants that they would be asked to complete the same questionnaire four
weeks later.
Test-retest reliability coefficients were also obtained in January and February, 1982. The
time lapse between the first and second administration was four weeks. Eight students in a
Family
Stress class were asked to administer the questionnaire to participants who were not involved in
family studies courses. Participants were asked to answer items in reference to the family they
presently lived in. Similar procedures as described in the earlier test-retest study were
implemented in the administration.
There were 116 subjects. Approximately two-thirds of the sample was female and one-
third was male. The majority of the sample was married and most was parents. The mean age of
respondents was 30 years. More than three-quarters of the sample responded from the reference
point of their family of procreation, or the unit they lived in at the time of the test.
The factors Reframing and Passive Appraisal show slightly lower test-retest scores in
comparison with the other factors. These findings suggest that the more concrete behavioral
items, such as Soliciting Social Support, provide more response consistency over time than those
factors which relate to more cognitive adjustment.
Additional Validity Checks
No additional studies to report at this time.

Scoring Procedures
A total Coping score may be obtained by summing the number circled by the respondent
(i.e., l=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, and 5=Always) for each item in the
F-COPES instrument. However, for four select items (12, 17, 26, and 28), the scores must be
reversed (i.e., 1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1). This will ensure that all items are weighted in the same
positive direction for both the analysis and the interpretation of results. Note: Item number 18
was not included in analysis due to a low factor loading.
Subscale scores are obtained by summing the number circled by the respondent (i.e.,
l=Never, 2=Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, and 5=Always) for the items in each
subscale. The list below will help you determine which items belong to each subscale. Items
that require reversal (i.e., 1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1) before summing are marked with an
asterisk in the right hand column.

Note once again that item number 18 was not included in analysis due to a low factor loading.

Subscale 1: Acquiring Social Support 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 16, 20, 25, 29

Subscale 2: Reframing 3, 7, 11, 13, 15, 19, 22, 24
Subscale 3: Seeking Spiritual Support 14, 23, 27, 30
Subscale 4: Mobilizing Family Support 4, 6, 9, 21
Subscale 5: Passive Appraisal 12*, 17*, 26*, 28*

Norms and/or Comparative Data

Comparative data were developed and are presented in Tables 15.2 through 15.7. Data were
obtained from adolescents who were in residential treatment for deviancy and social adjustment
problems. Tables 15.8 and 15.9 may be viewed as comparative data for African-American and
Caucasian adolescent boys separated into those who come from nuclear families and those who
come from single parent families.

Instrument Utilization for Research

To facilitate the review of research involving the use of F-COPES, a summary table of related
publications is provided. This table includes the authors, subjects, reliabilities, and notations on
findings. The results of our review of F-COPES are presented in Table 15.10.
 Notes

1. The earlier writings on this instrument included a comprehensive description of the instrument's
development. For the sake of brevity we limited the chapter to the basic information that users
have requested and needed. If you desire a copy and are unable to find our earlier publications,
either the 1987 or the 1991 edition, please write to us at the Center for Excellence in Family
Studies, Family Stress, Coping and Health Project, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1300
Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706 or send email to [email protected]. There will be a
charge for these additional materials.

2. When referencing this instrument, the proper citation is: McCubbin, H.L, Olson, D., & Larsen, A.
(1981). Family Crisis Oriented Personal Scales (F­COPES). In H.I. McCubbin, A.I. Thompson,
& M.A. McCubbin (1996). Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation-Inventories for
research and practice. (pp. 455-507). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.

3. A modified version of F-COPES was used in a study of Midwestern farm families. If you would
like to see a copy of this instrument and its psychometric data, please write to the project. There
will be a charge for this additional material.
 Table 15.2
F-COPES Comparative Data

Adults Adolescents Cumulative

Raw Male Female Male Female Percent
145-119 99 99 99
118 97 99 99 97
117 97 96 98 96
116 96 95 98
115 94 95
114 95 93 97
113 94 92 96 94
112 93 91 96 95 93
111 92 90 95 92
110 91 89 94 94 90
109 90 88 92 93 89
108 88 87 91 92 88
107 87 85 88 87
106 85 83 87 91 85
105 83 80 86 89 83
104 81 77 85 86 80
103 79 74 82 85 75
102 77 71 80 84 75
101 75 69 77 82 73
100 72 66 73 81 70
99 70 62 72 80 67
98 67 58 70 76 64
97 63 55 69 73 61
96 60 52 68 70 58
95 57 47 66 66 54
94 54 44 63 62 51
93 51 40 59 58 47
92 48 37 54 53 44
91 43 35 50 52 41
90 39 31 45 44 36
89 36 28 42 40 33
88 34 25 38 38 30
87 31 22 34 35 28
86 28 20 32 35 25
85 24 18 28 29 22
84 22 15 25 24 19
83 20 14 22 23 18
82 18 13 21 20 16
80 14 11 18 14
79 13 9 16 16 13
78 11 8 14 13 12
 Table 15.2 (continued)
F-COPES Comparative Data

Adults Adolescents
Raw Male Female Male Female Cumulative Percent
77 10 13 12 10
76 9 7 12 10 9
75 8 10 9 8
74 5 7 7
73 7 9 6
72
71
70-69 5

Mean 93.118 95.644 91.716 91.248 93.34

SD 14.051 13.244 13.254 12.602 13.62
Range 109.0 103.0 89.0 84.0 112.0
Kurtosis 2.129 2.431 .861 1.772 2.076
Skewness -0.594 -0.698 -0.004 -0.431 -0.593
Mode 92 96 91 91
 Table 15.3
Subscale Comparative Data Acquiring Social Support

Parents Adolescents Cumulative

Raw Male Female Male Female Percent
45-40 99 99 99 99
39 99 98 98 98
38 98 97 98 97 97
37 97 95 96 95 96
36 96 93 94 94 94
35 93 90 92 92 92
34 90 86 90 91 89
33 86 80 86 88 84
32 81 71 83 82 79
31 76 70 77 81 74
30 71 65 72 75 69
29 66 58 66 63 62
28 60 50 55 54 55
27 53 44 47 48 48
26 46 37 42 39 41
25 40 32 33 32 35
24 35 27 29 26 30
23 31 23 24 21 26
22 26 20 19 18 22
21 22 17 17 17 19
20 18 14 15 13 16
19 16 12 12 9 13
18 12 9 11 7 11
17 10 8 8 6 9

Mean 26.514 27.813 27.188 27.374 27.193

SD 6.453 6.512 6.282 5.959 6.439
Range 36 35 36 34 36
Kurtosis -0.340 -0.032 0.399 0.715 -0.103
Skewness -0.302 -0.434 -0.341 -0.401 -0.366
Mode 27 29 29 30 29
 Table 15.4
Subscale Comparative Data Reframing

Adults Adolescents Cumulative

Raw Male Female Male Female Percent
39-40 99 98 99 98
38 96 96 97 99 97
37 94 94 95 97 94
36 92 91 94 96 92
35 88 87 91 93 88
34 83 82 90 90 84
33 77 77 85 85 78
32 70 69 77 82 71
31 58 59 70 76 61
30 46 49 62 66 50
29 35 38 51 56 39
28 27 28 41 42 30
27 21 20 32 32 22
26 16 15 25 25 17
25 11 12 21 19 12
24 9 9 13 12 9
23 6 7 9 6 6
22
21
20
19
18
17

Mean 30.422 30.416 29.286 29.105 30.235

SD 4.913 4.863 4.645 4.28 4.848
Range 32 32 27 30 32
Kurtosis 4.044 3.019 0.892 2.390 3.192
Skewness -1.268 -1.010 -0.274 -0.437 -1.025
Mode 31 30 30 29 30
 Table 15.5
Subscale Comparative Data Seeking Spiritual Support

Parents Adolescents Cumulative

Raw Male Female Male Female Percent
20 100 100 100 100
19 89 86 97 95 89
18 79 73 92 89 78
17 66 57 86 78 64
16 48 40 71 65 48
15 37 28 56 48 36
14 26 19 41 37 25
13 18 13 28 25 17
12 13 9 17 16 12
11 7 5 6 7
10 9 5
9 4
8-4

Mean 15.958 16.576 14.868 15.146 16.067

SD 3.143 2.889 2.775 2.993 3.048
Range 16 16 15 16 16
Kurtosis 1.790 2.838 0.870 0.867 1.833
Skewness -1.184 -1.39 -0.697 -0.817 -1.164
Mode 17 17 15 16 17
 Table 15.6
Subscale Comparative Data Mobilizing of Family to Acquire and Accept Help

Parents Adolescents Cumulative

Raw Male Female Male Female Percent
20-19 99 99 99
18 98 97 98
17 96 94 99 99 96
16 94 89 98 98 93
15 86 81 95 95 85
14 80 71 86 92 77
13 69 57 80 83 66
12 57 44 68 74 54
11 43 31 61 62 41
10 33 23 49 52 31
9 23 16 37 45 23
8 16 13 28 32 17
7 11 9 15 24 11
6 7 6 11 14 7
5-4

Mean 11.827 12.665 10.631 10.225 11.965

SD 3.276 3.312 3.256 3.260 3.370
Range 16 16 16 15 16
Kurtosis -0.236 -0.075 -0.424 -0.622 -0.320
Skewness -0.143 -0.400 -0.031 0.05 -0.219
Mode 12 14 8 12 12
 Table 15.7
Subscale Comparative Data Passive Appraisal

Adults Adolescents Cumulative

Raw Male Female Male Female Percent
20-16 99 99
15 98 99 99 99 98
14 97 97 97 95 97
13 94 95 92 92 94
12 91 91 82 83 90
11 84 85 72 71 82
10 76 77 61 62 74
9 66 67 45 49 63
8 56 57 27 40 53
7 41 46 19 26 40
6 28 35 14 14 29
5 16 22 6 7 17
4 8 13 3 3 9

Mean 8.476 8.195 9.859 9.590 8.554

SD 2.951 3.059 2.727 2.830 3.014
Range 16 16 16 12 16
Kurtosis 0.024 -0.002 0.192 -0.756 -0.175
Skewness 0.576 0.586 0.058 0.101 0.469
Mode 8 6 9 8 8
 Table 15.8
Nuclear Families Means and Standard Deviations

African-American Caucasian
Families Families Total
Scale Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
Overall 96.86 10.58 95.38 13.56 95.91 12.17
Acquiring Social Support 28.98 4.14 27.10 8.60 27.77 7.19
Reframing 31.04 3.22 32.89 3.60 32.23 3.60
Seeking Spiritual Support* 14.48 3.95 13.26 4.37 13.77 4.06
Mobilizing Family to Acquire 14.72 4.39 12.95 3.11 13.63 3.58
& Accept Help**
Passive Appraisal 8.64 3.69 9.07 4.02 8.91 3.77
NOTE: There were a total of 14 cases; 5 African-American families and 9 Caucasian families.
*Total of 12 cases; 5 African-American families and 7 Caucasian families.
**Total of 13 cases; 5 African-American families and 8 Caucasian families.

Table 15.9
Single-Parent Families Means and Standard Deviations

African-American Caucasian
Families Families Total
Scale Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
Overall* 101.15 16.94 91.62 13.50 96.46 15.96
Acquiring Social Support* 30.65 6.28 28.41 6.14 29.55 6.27
Reframing 31.81 5.86 28.43 5.72 30.17 6.00
Seeking Spiritual Support 15.55 3.98 13.86 3.95 14.25 4.16
Mobilizing Family to Acquire 13.93 3.62 13.79 3.40 13.86 3.49
& Accept Help**
Passive Appraisal 10.20 3.97 8.70 3.16 9.47 3.65
NOTE: There were a total of 66 cases; 34 African-American families and 32 Caucasian families.
*Total of 65 cases; 33 African-American families and 32 Caucasian families.
**Total of 64 cases; 33 African-American families and 31 Caucasian families.
 Table 15.10
Family Crisis "Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F-COPES):
Select Published Reports
N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Alcini O'Brien, B. (1992) Parent dyads who had a 56 N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
son with a learning • Similar results were found in both groups
disability & parent dyads with the exception that parents in the
who had a son with no comparison group reported greater use of
academic difficulties social support than parents of children with
disabilities.
Becker, P.T., Hous.er, Families of SO-month old 52 N/A • Greater discrepancy in family functioning:
B.J., Engelhardt, KF., & children with mental delay less use of reframing (mother), greater use
Steinmann, M.J. (1993) & no delay of passive appraisal (mother & father); less
use of social support (mother), less use of
spiritual & social support, mobilizing
family (father)
• Mother’s reframing & parent's score for
passive appraisal explain significant percent
of variance in family functioning.
Bertulfo, AC. (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Bloom, R. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Borchers, A. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Bramlett, R., Hall, J., Parents or guardians of 116 .86 • Results of regression analysis revealed that
Barnett, D., & Rowell, R. kindergarten children at 10 the outcome variable, parental stress, was
(1995) public schools in a rural setting predicted significantly by a combination of2
F-COPES dimensions: reframing & passive
appraisal; both correlated inversely.
Brannock, B. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Brooks, E. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Brown, P.A (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Captain, C. (1995) Couples with one member 17 .86 • No change in coping scores between pre test
having spinal cord injury, & post test. Couples in communications
both English speaking & program scored higher on verbalizing to
able to demonstrate 6th acquire help & passive appraisal.
grade reading proficiency
Chasse, F. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Chiverton, P. (1991) Primary caregivers of 91 N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Alzheimer's disease patients • In the models of best fit, resources have a
followed at the Older Adult direct effect on mastery which has a direct
and Memory Disorders Clinic effect on caregiver functioning.
at Strong Memorial Hospital or
attending Alzheimer's
Association support groups
Cockburn, J. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Comana, M. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Condori Ingaroca, L.J. N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
(1994)
Crawford, G. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Cullen, J.C., MacLeod, Families with mentally 62 N/A • Mothers of infants had lower coping scores.
J.A, Williams, P.D., & retarded (MR) persons living • Mothers of school age & adult MR persons
Williams, AR. (1991) at home had higher coping scores.
DeReus, L. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Dietz-Omar, M.A (1991) Comparison of family coping 80 N/A • Significant differences were noted.
during pregnancy for Stepfamily wives used more internal family
stepfamilies & traditional coping than did traditional. Traditional
nuclear families husbands & stepfamily wives used more
external family coping.
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Dougherty, C. (1994) Sudden cardiac arrest survivors 30 N/A • Differences in total family coping strategies
(SCA) & 1 member of each across time were significant for spouses:
family participated over a one less family coping occurred with time. Both
year period SCA survivors & spouses reported lower
levels of family coping strategies than the
normative sample.
Dougherty, C. (1995) Individuals who spoke 46 .87 • Lower levels of family social support,
English, lived within a 50-mile spiritual support, family resources & total
radius of Seattle, had 1 person family coping reported. Higher levels of
in home who agreed to family passive appraisal or acceptance of
participate & had experienced problems reported.
cardiac arrest from primary
ventricular fibrillation
Ducharme, F. (1994) Marital partners; individuals 270 .75 • Reframing of problems was the only coping
were 65 years or older, living strategy found to contribute significantly to
at home & had physical & life satisfaction.
mental capacity to be
interviewed
Dudley, J.A (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Duong, D. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Failla, S. (1989) Caregivers of children with 63 N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
cognitive and/or physical
disabilities
Foster, V. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Frame, M., & Shehan, C. Married clergymen from a 212 N/A • Wives of clergymen had a significantly
(1994) Florida conference, all who greater pile-up of demands & significantly
relocated in June 1992 & had fewer coping resources than did their
been in their current locations husbands.
four years or more
Gordin, M. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Grabow, J. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Greef, A.P. (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Griffin-Carlson, M.S. N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
(1994)
Hamid, A. (1993) Biological mothers of a 136 N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
mentally retarded child • Findings showed mother's education,
religion, ethnic group, income, length of
marriage & number of living children had
significant relationships with family coping
patterns.
Hankjn, D. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Hanline, M., & Daley, S. Mothers of children 36 206 N/A • African-American families scored higher on
(1992) months of age or less (59 mobilizing the family (F-COPES).
Hispanic; 66 African- • Family pride related to reframing in
American; 81 Caucasian) Hispanic families of children with
disabilities.
• Family pride related to spiritual support.
• Hispanic families & Caucasian families with
disabilities indicated greater use of social
support, spiritual support & mobilizing to
get help.
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Harris, M., & Kotch, J. Mother-infant dyads, women 367 N/A • The intrafamily coping behaviors of
(1994) were biologic mothers of reframing & passive appraisal were not
single births & main caretakers significantly related to unintentional infant
of their infant injury.
• Mothers who reported families using such
strategies more often reported less
depression, stress & family conflict.
Hiam, M. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Hill, E. (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Hilton, B.A. (1993) Couples with woman newly 43 N/A • Anecdotal interview data: different coping
diagnosed with Nonmetastatic behaviors not important to managing early-
breast cancer stage breast cancer
Holland, C. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Jacobson, J. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Kaba, E. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Kong, F., Perrucci, C.C., Workers displaced from candy 70 N/A • LISREL analysis confirmed model &
& Perrucci, R. (1993) factory importance of social support
Kopstein, I. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Kosciulek, J. (1994) Families in which one member 150 .79 • With the sample used, 43% of the variance
had a head injury in family adaptation was explained by the
joint prediction of positive appraisal &
family tension management.
Kunnie, T.Y. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Lavee, Y., McCubbin, Caucasian, middle class, 1140 .72 - .78 • LISREL analysis
H.I., & Olson, D.H. Protestant families in each • Sense of coherence positively related to
(1987) family life stage, from rural & intrafamily strain
urban areas • Coping integral part of final LISREL model
Leavitt, M.B. (1990) Families coping with major 42 .86 • Social support seeking dropped significantly
vascular surgery & recovery after discharge.
• Reframing increased
• Mobilization to acquire & accept help
increased
Lee, Y. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Leiter, M. (1990) Staff members of hospital in 122 N/A • LISREL analysis revealed that family
Dartsmouth, Nova Scotia coping resources were related to burnout in
a manner consistent with a resource
depletion view of the syndrome. The
additional negative relationship with family
coping indicated that a lack of such
resources results in even higher levels of
emotional exhaustion.
Lewis James, M. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Macbeth, D. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Malia, J. (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Maserang, J. (1992) Adult child caregivers 65 N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
• No significant correlation between burden
scores & the F-COPES was found.
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
McCubbin, H.I., Kapp, S., Families of youth at risk 100 .61 - .86 • Family coping emerges as an important
& Thompson, A.I. (1993) involved in residential predictor of adolescent completion of
treatment residential treatment.
• Of particular importance were family efforts
at reframing & passive appraisal.
• Reframing was inversely related to program
completion while passive appraisal was
positively related to program completion.
McCutchan, J. (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Mernc, A.P. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Minnes, P. (1988) Mothers of mentally retarded 60 N/A • Three subscales of F-COPES were used to
children who attended an measure external family resources.
outpatient clinic in Toronto, • The results suggest that the more support
Canada parents have from clergy & church
affiliation, the more stress they experience
associated with life-span care for their child.
Moore, A.D., Stambrook, Head injured (injuries ranging 46 N/A • Family coping positively was related to
M., Peters, L.C., & from mild to severe) male marital adjustment.
Lubusko, A. (1991) patients in marital or
common-law living
arrangement
Moore, J. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Myers, H.F., Taylor, S., Families with children 6-8 441 .86 • Moderate association between maternal risk
Alvy, K T., Arrington, A., years of age; predictors of attributes & use of family reframing; &
& Richardson, M.A. behavior problems in inner- between family stress load & mobilizing
(1992) city African-American family to seek help; both statistically
children significant
• Regression analyses confirm importance of
5 coping strategies
• Ethnic differences observed (African-
American boys & girls)
Nash, M.A. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Nolan, M.T., Cupples, Family members of patients on 38 .96 • Used. greater number of coping mechanisms
S.A., Brown, M., Pierce, active list for cardiac • Higher on acquiring social support,
L., Lepley, D., & Ohler, L. transplantation reframing, mobilizing family to accept help
(1992) • Lower in seeking spiritual support &
passive appraisal
Olson, D., McCubbin, Families at different stages of 1140 .86 • Individuals tended to rely on internal
H.L, Barnes, H., Larsen, the life cycle resources rather than external supports
A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, offered by community.
M. (1983) • Reframing was the coping strategy used
most frequently.
• Accurate predictor of family functioning &
distress
• Normative data on family coping across
stages of life cycle
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Omitz, A.W., & Brown, Couples in which women 104 .71 - .85 • Reframing important for both men &
M.A. (1993) reported severe premenstrual women
symptoms • High symptom women: faith in God, focus
on solutions, face problems head on
• Women more inclined to seek support,
assistance, & accept gifts
Patterson, J.M., Jernell, J., Home care-giving by parents 48 N/A • Mothers: believing in family strengths
Leonard, B.J., & Titus, of medically fragile children positively related to strain with home care
J.C. (1994) providers
• Fathers; seeking social support inversely
related to strain with home care providers
Peterson, K (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Philichi, L.M. (1989) Families with children 30 N/A • Family coping strategies not related to
hospitalized in pediatric family functioning, significantly higher for
intensive care unit families with hospitalized children
• Coping was significantly related to mother's
religious affiliation.
Pilon-Kacir, C.E. (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Porter, D.S. (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Powers, S.I., Dill, D., Families of seriously ill 96 N/A • Psychiatric adolescents' greater use of
Hauser, S.T., Noam. G.G., adolescents (diabetic, family passivity & mothers' use of
& Jacobson, A.M. (1985) psychiatric, non-patient) community resources & less confidence in
problem solving
• Diabetic adolescents' greater use of
extended family, mothers' use of reframing,
fathers' use of community resources
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Reis, S., & Heppner, P. Mother-daughter pairs (31) 47 N/A • Incest groups engaged in fewer coping
(1993) where daughter was currently behaviors.
in therapy as a result of
acknowledgement of incest,
compared to non-clinical pairs
Samuelson, J. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Samuelson, J.J., Foltz, J., Parents of preschool & school 34 .77 • Mothers higher in coping than fathers
& Foxall, M.J. (1992) age children with • Spiritual coping high for both
myelomeningocele • Family passivity low
Scarborough, J. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Shin, H. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Smith, C.E. (1994) Caregivers: home care-giving 111 .81 • Path analyses used to test relationships
effectiveness for technology • Family coping had a direct effect on
dependent adults caregiver & patient quality of life.
Smith, C.E., Mayer, L.S., Families of patients requiring 20 .895 • Qualitative analysis with semi-structured
Parkhurst, C., Perkins, .B., mechanical ventilation at home interview
& Pingleton, S.K. (1991) • Caregivers reported effective coping
Stephenson, C. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Syuhaimie, A. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Thoma, M.E., Families with children with 38 .82 • No differences in family coping
Hockenberry-Eaton, M., cancer & healthy children
& Kemp, V. (1993)
Thomas, V. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Varvaro, F. (1993) Women who experienced 75 N/A • No significant relationship was found.
post-coronary events of
angina, myocardial infarction
or coronary artery bypass
surgery (42 were 38-64 years,
33 were 65 years or older)
VonEitzen, C.E. (1993) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Vujakovich, M. (1992) N/A N/A N/A • Master’s Thesis
Wagner, J., & Menke, Homeless, poor domiciled, & 86 .86 • Coping patterns were similar for 3 groups of
E.M. (1991) low-income domiciled mothers.
mothers
Wallet, KA. (1994) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Williams, P.D., Williams, Mothers of children 2-30 25 .80 • Mothers scored lower on family coping than
AR., & Griggs, C. (1990) months old, on apnea monitors expected.
or off apnea monitors 18 • Language scores of children were positively
months or more related to reframing & negatively related to
help-seeking.
Wilson, T. (1995) N/A N/A N/A • Doctoral Dissertation
Woods, N., & Lewis, F. Women with chronic illness 48 N/A • Analysis of 3 year longitudinal data model
(1995) depicts family coping as a factor in family
functioning.
Worden, J., & Silverman, Bereaved families of widowed 70 .64 - .87 • Clinically depressed patients low in
P.S. (1993) parents with school age cohesiveness & seeking help, used more
children passive coping
 Table 15.10 (continued)
Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F·COPES):
Select Published Reports

N Alpha
Author(s) Sample Count Reliability Validity Notes
Yates, B., Bensley, L., Families with a mother with a 105 N/A • Family introspection & reliance on kith &
Lalonde, B., Lewis, F., & chronic health condition. Part kin were significantly related to being
Woods, N. (1995) of 3-year longitudinal study on happily married.
impact of mothers' chronic
illness on family:
Nonmetastatic breast cancer
(51), diabetes (24), fibrocystic
breast changes (30)
Youngblut, J.M., Families with medically fragile 10 N/A • Mean scores on the F·COPES subscales
Brennan, P.F., & children indicate a moderately high level of use for
Swegart, L.A (1994) strategies in these subscales: mobilize
family, acquire social support, & seek
spiritual support.
 F-COPES
FAMILY CRISIS ORIENTED PERSONAL

EVALUATION SCALES

Malay Version
 F-COPES
FAMILY CRISIS ORIENTED PERSONAL EVALUATION SCALES
(SKALA PENILAIAN PERIBADI BERORENTASI KRISIS KELUARGA)

Hamilton I. McCubbin David H. Olsen Andrea S. Larsen

Tujuan
F-COPES direka bagi merekodkan sikap penyelesaian masalah dan tingkah laku keluarga dalam bertindak
balas terhadap masalah atau kesukaran.

Arahan menjawab soalan

Sila baca senarai ‘Pilihan Respon’ satu demi satu.
Sila tentukan manakah kenyataan yang menunjukkan sikap dan tingkah laku sebagai respon kepada masalah
atau kesusahan. Jika setiap respon kenyataan anda sangat baik, sila bulatkan pada nombor 5 yang
menunjukkan anda sangat bersetuju; jika kenyataan tidak menunjukkan respon anda, sila bulatkan nombor
1 di mana anda sangat tidak bersetuju; jika setiap respon kenyataan adalah sedikit bersetuju, sila pilih
nombor 2, 3 atau 4 yang menunjukkan anda bersetuju atau tidak bersetuju dengan kenyataan yang diberikan
terhadap respon anda.
Sila bulatkan nombor (1, 2, 3, 4 atau 5) untuk dipadankan respon anda dengan setiap kenyataan.
Terima kasih.

1 = Sangat Tidak Bersetuju

2 = Sederhana Tidak Setuju
3 = Di antara Setuju dan Tidak Setuju
4 = Sederhana Setuju
5 = Sangat Setuju

Apabila kami berhadapan dengan masalah atau kesusahan dalam

dan Tidak Setuju

Sangat Bersetuju
Sederhana Tidak

keluarga kami, respon kami adalah: Di antara Setuju

Sangat Tidak

Sederhana
Bersetuju

Bersetuju

Bersetuju

1. Berkongsi masalah dengan saudara-mara 1 2 3 4 5

2. Mendapatkan galakan dan sokongan daripada kawan- 1 2 3 4 5
kawan
3. Mengetahui kami mempunyai kuasa untuk menyelesaikan 1 2 3 4 5
masalah
4. Mencari informasi dan nasihat daripada seseorang dalam 1 2 3 4 5
keluarga lain yang berhadapan dengan masalah yang sama
atau hampir sama
5. Mencari nasihat daripada ahli keluarga (datuk/nenek) 1 2 3 4 5
6. Mencari bantuan dari agensi komuniti dan program yang 1 2 3 4 5
direka untuk membantu keluarga berhadapan dengan
masalah
7. Mengetahui kami mempunyai kekuatan di kalangan 1 2 3 4 5
keluarga untuk menyelesaikan masalah kami
8. Menerima hadiah dan pertolongan daripada jiran 1 2 3 4 5
(contohnya, makanan, menerima mel.)
9. Mencari informasi dan nasihat daripada doktor yang biasa 1 2 3 4 5
temui
10. Meminta bantuan dan pertolongan dari jiran tetangga 1 2 3 4 5
11. Behadapan masalah dengan ‘head-on’ dan cuba untuk 1 2 3 4 5
menyelesaikan dengan segera
12. Menonton televisyen 1 2 3 4 5
13. Menunjukkan kami adalah kuat 1 2 3 4 5
14. Menghadiri perkhidmatan agama 1 2 3 4 5
15. Menerima bahawa peristiwa yang stres adalah lumrah 1 2 3 4 5
dalam kehidupan
16. Berkongsi kebimbangan kepada kawan yang rapat 1 2 3 4 5
17. Mengetahui nasib memainkan peranan yang besar dalam 1 2 3 4 5
bagaimana kita dapat menyelesaikan masalah keluarga
18. Bersenam dengan kawan untuk mengekalkan kesihatan dan 1 2 3 4 5
mengurangkan ketegangan
19. Menerima bahawa kesusahan itu berlaku di luar jangkaan 1 2 3 4 5
20. Melakukan aktiviti bersama saudara mara (perjumpaan 1 2 3 4 5
keluarga, makan-makan, dll)
21. Mendapatkan bantuan dan kaunseling profesional untuk 1 2 3 4 5
keluarga
22. Percaya kami boleh mengatasi masalah sendiri 1 2 3 4 5
23. Melibatkan diri dalam aktiviti keagamaan atau kerohanian 1 2 3 4 5
24. Mentafsirkan masalah keluarga secara lebih positif supaya 1 2 3 4 5
tidak terlalu kecewa
25. Bertanya kepada saudara mara mengenai pandangan 1 2 3 4 5
mereka terhadap masalah kami hadapi
26. Merasakan walaubagaimana sekalipun kami merancang, 1 2 3 4 5
kami tetap akan menghadapi kesukaran untuk mengatasi
masalah
27. Mendapatkan nasihat pegawai pentadbir atau pemimpin 1 2 3 4 5
agama
28. Percaya bahawa lama-kelamaan masalah tersebut akan 1 2 3 4 5
selesai
29. Berkongsi masalah dengan jiran tetangga 1 2 3 4 5
30. Mempunyai keyakinan kepada Tuhan atau kuasa yang lebih 1 2 3 4 5
besar