Detailled Information

Name of the Instrument/Tool Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ)
First Description

Rosenstiel AK, Keefe FJ. The use of coping strategies in chronic low back pain patients: Relationship to patient characteristics and current adjustment. Pain. 1983;17:33–44

Year 1983
Domains
Concept of constructs Coping & helplessness, Self efficacy
Population/Disease Disease specific
Originally developed for ---
Other rheumatic diseases
where can be applied (only if validated)
Fibromyalgia (FM), Low Back Pain (LBP), Osteoarthritis (OA), Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)
Additional population with no rheumatic diseases Yes
Cancer pain
Language: Originally published in English
Available in Language English, French, German, Italian, Spanish
REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION
Author/s Swimmer GI, Robinson ME, Geisser ME.
Title Relationship of MMPI cluster type, pain coping strategy and treatment outcome.
Journal Clin J Pain
Year 1992
Vol 8
Num ---
Pages 131-7
Country ---
Language ---
Other references of interest
Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9084951/
Brief Description

In this study, the CSQ was subjected to item-level exploratory factor analysis.

Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29258726/
Brief Description

This SLR aims to to identify, appraise and synthesise the outcome measures used to assess self-management in patients with chronic pain

Instrument/Tool Translations References
Link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158961/#b3-prm …
Brief Description

Italian validation of the CSQ.

Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18514150/
Brief Description

French validation of the CSQ.

DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION
Correspondence to Michael Robinson
E-Mail merobin@ufl.edu
Address Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Website ---
Available ---
Links ---
DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT
Type Of Measure Questionnaire
Brief Description

The original CSQ is a 50-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess 6 cognitive coping responses to pain and 2 behavioral responses. This scale measures how frequently the six cognitive coping strategies (ignoring pain, reinterpretation, diverting attention, self-statements, catastrophising, praying/hoping) and two behavioural coping (increasing activity and increasing pain behaviour- overt pain behaviours that decrease pain) are used; and includes two single item questions on how effective each of these coping
strategies is in controlling and decreasing pain.

Although it had good reliability and validity, it showed an unstable structure that has been hypothesized to be mainly due to difficulties in measuring differences in cognition between different clinical settings, disorders and pain problems. In 1996, an exploratory factor analysis of a large sample of subjects with chronic pain suggested a six-factor solution that was relatively supportive of the original scales, and showed satisfactory reliability and construct validity (CSQ-R).

It was then refined, and decreased from the original 50-item questionnaire to a more ‘user-friendly’ 14-item version. The shorter CSQ has been proven to be a valid and reliable tool in assessing coping strategies for patients with chronic pain.

Number of Items 50/ 14
Range ---
Responses options/scale Yes
7
Developed for Both
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Method of administration Self-administered
Recommendations to score

Subjects rate the frequency of their use of each coping strategy on a 7-point Likert-type scale, from "Never do that" to "Always do that." Subjects also rate, on a similar 7-point Likert scale, their perceived control over their pain and their ability to decrease their pain based on their use of their endorsed strategies.

Score Interpretation Each subscale has a maximum score of 36 and a minimum score of 0. An additional two single item questions each with a scoring range of 0–6 are used as effectiveness ratings of control over pain and ability to decrease pain.
Cut-off points ---
Cut-off points applied to ---
Smallest detectable change if described ---
Smallest detectable change applied to ---
Completion time by the patient 5 minutes
Scoring time by the assessor 0 minutes
Training to score Not necessary
Strengths Easy to use
Limitations Copyrighted, Lengthy
OTHER COMMENTS
Other Comments ---