Objectives: The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) is a measurement tool for evaluating stress that has good psychometric properties. We investigated the applicability of a short-form version of the CISS in a large sample of Chinese university students. Methods: Nine hundred and seventy-two Chinese university students aged 18-30 years (mean =20.15, standard deviation =3.26) were chosen as subjects, of whom 101 were randomly selected to be retested after a 2-week interval. Results: The results of a confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the root mean square error of approximation of a four-factor model was 0.06, while the comparative fit index was 0.91, the incremental fit index was 0.93, the non-normed fit index was 0.91, and the root mean residual was 0.07. The Cronbach’s α coefficients for the task-oriented, emotion-oriented, distraction, and social diversion coping subscales were 0.81, 0.74, 0.7, and 0.66, respectively. The 2-week test-retest reliability was 0.78, 0.74, 0.7, and 0.65 for the task-oriented, emotion-oriented, distraction, and social diversion coping subscales, respectively. In the Chinese version of the CISS short form, task-oriented coping was positively correlated with positive affect and extraversion and negatively correlated with neuroticism; emotion-oriented coping was negatively correlated with extraversion and positively correlated with negative affect, anxiety, and neuroticism; distraction coping was positively correlated with neuroticism, extroversion, anxiety, positive affect, and negative affect and negatively correlated with psychoticism; and social diversion coping was positively correlated with extroversion and positive affect and negatively correlated with psychoticism. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the CISS short form is satisfactorily valid and reliable among Chinese university students.
Li, C., Liu, Q., Hu, T., & Jin, X. (2017). Adapting the short form of the coping inventory for stressful situations into Chinese. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 13, 1669–1675. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S136950