NWU Institutional Repository

Validation of a coping self–efficacy scale in an African context

dc.contributor.advisorWissing, M.P.
dc.contributor.advisorTemane, Q.M.
dc.contributor.authorVan Wyk, Mabet Marieen_US
dc.contributor.researchID10174524 - Wissing, Maria Philipina (Supervisor)
dc.contributor.researchID12027049 - Temane, Qambeshile Michael (Supervisor)
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-03T10:31:57Z
dc.date.available2011-10-03T10:31:57Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.descriptionThesis (M.A. (Research Psychology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.
dc.description.abstractVarious scales have previously been developed to measure coping strategies (Taylor & Stanton, 2007; Devonport & Lane, 2006; Stapelberg, 1999) or self–efficacy (Carroll et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2001; Tipton & Worthington, 1984); and some of them have been validated in a South African context, but the validation of a coping self–efficacy scale as a single measurement has not been conducted in an African context. Therefore, the aim of this study was to validate Chesney et al.’s 2006 Coping Self–Efficacy Scale (CSE) in an African context. A multicultural convenience sample of 2 214 South African adolescents and adults, including both male and female participants, participated in this study. Measuring instruments such as the Coping Self–Efficacy Scale (CSE) (Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor & Folkman, 2006), the Mental Health Continuum - Short Form for adults (MHC–SF) (Keyes et al., 2008), the New General Self–Efficacy Scale (NGSE) (Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001; 2004), the Fortitude Questionnaire (FORQ) (Pretorius, 1998), the Patient Health Questionnaire: Depression Symptoms (PHQ–9) (Kroenke, Spitzer & Williams, 2001) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) were used in this study. Criterion–related validity of the CSE was established. Construct validity was determined by conducting confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses as well as SEM on the CSE. Results indicated a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.87 and satisfactory inter–item correlations ranging from 0.19–0.21. Criterion–related validity was satisfactory. Confirmatory analysis indicated a good fit and exploratory factor analysis confirmed the three major factors similar to Chesney et al.’s (2006) findings. Construct validity was further supported by SEM analysis, which confirmed the three–factor structure. The CSE can be viewed as reliable and valid for use in further research in the African context. Future studies should validate this scale in various population groups, with translated versions of the scale and with randomly selected groups.en_US
dc.description.thesistypeMastersen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/4883
dc.publisherNorth-West University
dc.subjectCoping self-efficacy scale (CSE)en_US
dc.subjectSouth Africaen_US
dc.subjectValidityen_US
dc.subjectReliabilityen_US
dc.subjectSelf-efficacyen_US
dc.subjectCopingen_US
dc.subjectSuid-Afrikaen_US
dc.subjectGeldigheiden_US
dc.subjectBetroubaarheiden_US
dc.subjectSelfdoeltreffendheiden_US
dc.titleValidation of a coping self–efficacy scale in an African contexten
dc.typeThesisen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
vanWyk_MM.pdf
Size:
423.1 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.61 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:

Collections