|
Article Excerpt
Measurement properties of scores from the Preventive Resources Inventory (C. J. McCarthy & R. G. Lambert, 2001), a measure of stress-prevention resources, were evaluated. Sample-specific construct validity of 3 primary scales was supported. A 4th, Self-Acceptance, functioned as a higher order factor. Differences were found between those reporting no psychological symptoms and symptom-reporting subgroups on all scales.
**********
The field of counseling has strong philosophical roots in the prevention of human dysfunction, yet prevention is not a prominent feature of most counseling interventions (Romano & Hage, 2000). The realities of today's managed care environment, among other factors, have led many counselor training programs to follow medically oriented remedial models of mental health, emphasizing individual treatment of psychopathology (Albee, 2000). A similar situation exists in the stress and coping literature: The primary emphasis of practice and research in this area is on hardiness or resilience for withstanding stress rather than on proactive measures for preventing it (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; Matheny, Aycock, Pugh, Curlette, & Canella, 1986).
Current models of stress assume that when a potentially threatening event is encountered, a reflexive, cognitive balancing act ensues in which the perceived demands of the event are weighed against one's perceived capabilities for dealing with it (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Psychological coping resources are therefore assumed to play a pivotal role in whether or not life events are perceived as threatening. When these resources are seriously challenged by life's demands, the body's stress response is triggered (Hobfoll, 1988a, 1988b), resulting in a series of massive, instantaneous, and reflexive physiological changes. Unfortunately, chronic elicitation of the stress response can lead to a variety of physiological, behavioral, and psychological stress symptoms, even for those who cope successfully (Sapolsky, 1998).
One key to healthy living, therefore, would be to prevent stress whenever possible. In order to do that, one must possess adequate levels of coping resources useful for prevention, which would presumably result in fewer threats to one's well-being, thereby reducing the occurrence of the stress response (Matheny et al., 1986; McCarthy, Lambert, & Brack, 1997). Antonovsky (1979) called such capacities "generalized resistance resources," and Greenglass and Burke (1991) and Ogus (1992) have advanced similar notions. More recently, Aspinwall and Taylor (1997) defined proactive coping as the processes through which people anticipate or detect potential stressors and act in advance to prevent them or lessen their impact.
Assessment instruments vary considerably in how coping resources are defined and measured, perhaps reflecting the varied ways in which researchers attempt to understand the coping process (for a review, see McCarthy, Lambert, Beard, & Dematatis, 2002). Although a broad range of resources are typically assessed by such measures, scant attention is usually paid to the role of prevention (Hammer & Marting, 1988; Matheny et al., 1986; Moos, Cronkite, Billings, & Finney, 1985). The purpose of this study, therefore, is to provide situationally specific evidence for the reliability and validity of the scores obtained by using the Preventive Resources Inventory (PRI; McCarthy & Lambert, 2001) with college students. The PRI is an 82-item self-report measure designed to assess perceptions of one's ability to minimize or negate stressful life circumstances. Previous research and development with the PRI is described next, followed by an overview of the goals of the current study.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH WITH THE PRI
Matheny et al. (1986) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of the stress literature and, on the basis of this review, suggested an integrative model of stress and coping that incorporates attempts to both prevent and combat stress. It was evident from this review of the literature that few investigations into the preventive role of coping resources had been conducted. In an attempt to address this gap in the literature. McCarthy et al. (1997) attempted to empirically test the distinction between preventive and combative coping resources in Matheny et al.'s (1986) taxonomy. Specifically, McCarthy et al. (1997) examined the relationship of preventive and combative types of coping resources to the intensity of negative emotions reported by graduate counseling students following a romantic relationship breakup. The constructs of preventive and combative coping resources were operationalized with scales from a comprehensive instrument designed to measure a broad range of coping resources, the Coping Resources Inventory for Stress (CRIS; Matheny, Curlette, Aycock, Pugh, & Taylor, 1987). McCarthy et al. (1997) found that self-confidence, a resource similar to Bandura's (1982) concept of self-efficacy, was predictive of the magnitude of negative emotions immediately following relationship breakup, which was interpreted as an indicator of the ability to cope preventively with the event. Other resources identified by McCarthy et al. (1997) as important for preventive coping included self-directedness, defined as the degree of respect for one's own judgment as a guide to behavior, and acceptance, which is a set of beliefs and behaviors indicating acceptance of self, others, and the world (Curlette, Aycock, Matheny, Pugh, & Taylor, 1992). Combative resources were interpreted as those most closely associated with the emotions experienced by participants in the weeks or months following the relationship breakup, which were also operationalized with relevant CRIS scales, and included self-disclosure, which is a tendency to disclose freely one's feelings and thoughts; tension control, defined as the ability to lower arousal through relaxation procedures and thought control; and problem solving, which is the ability to use various strategies to resolve problems (Curlette et al., 1992). Support for the differential relationship of preventive and combative coping resources to emotions experienced immediately after the occurrence of a stressor, as well as in the weeks and months that followed, was replicated in a study of graduate students' positive and negative emotions after beginning a new job (McCarthy & Lambert, 1999).
Although supportive of Matheny et al.'s (1986) taxonomy with respect to the predictive relationship between preventive and combative coping resources and emotional responses, the McCarthy et al. (1997) and McCarthy and Lambert (1999) studies relied on parsing an existing measure of coping resources (the CRIS), which was not explicitly designed to measure preventive coping resources. Therefore, McCarthy and Lambert (2001) developed a 60-item pilot version of a measure, the PRI, to directly address the prevention of stress. This version of the PRI attempted to apply an explicit focus on preventive coping to the types of resources found to be most useful for stress prevention in previous research (Matheny et al., 1986; McCarthy & Lambert, 1999; McCarthy et al., 1997), including self-confidence, self-directedness, and acceptance. Although the availability of social support was found to be a combative resource by McCarthy et al. (1997) and McCarthy and Lambert (1999), items assessing a construct labeled social resourcefulness as a preventive resource were written for the pilot measure because of the large body of research suggesting that social networks can act as a buffer against stressful life events (e.g., Procidano, 1992).
In a study designed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the scores obtained by using the PRI with college students, McCarthy, Lambert, Beard, et al. (2002) used a sample of 501 undergraduates to examine (a) the factor structure of the PRI, (b) construct validity with theoretically relevant measures (i.e., measures of self-efficacy, social connectedness, coping resources, and use of various coping strategies), and (c) construct validity with measures of stressors and stress symptoms (i.e., measures of perceived levels of stress, life events, and stress symptoms). The results of the exploratory factor analysis supported the existence of three underlying factors in the PRI, which were labeled Perceived Control, Maintaining Perspective, and Social Resourcefulness. An additional factor, labeled Self-Acceptance, was also retained. It contained items considered to be theoretically similar in content and important to the overall theoretical construct the instrument was developed to measure. However, these items yielded structure coefficients greater than .40 across multiple factors, suggesting both the need for further refinement and the possibility of a higher order factor.
Each of the preventive resources identified in the exploratory factor analysis of the PRI by McCarthy, Lambert, Beard, et al. (2002) was consistent with the four types of preventive resources identified by McCarthy et al. (1997) and McCarthy and Lambert (1999): self-confidence, social support, self-directedness, and acceptance. The PRI scales related to each of these constructs are discussed in turn. First, the Perceived Control (similar to self-confidence) scale was defined as measuring perceptions of the ability to influence life events in order to keep daily hassles from becoming stressful, which is consistent with findings in the stress literature that a sense of control over one's life is effective at mitigating potential stressors and stress symptoms (Antoni, 1987; McCabe & Schneiderman, 1985). The Social Resourcefulness (similar to social support) scale measures perceptions of one's ability to form and maintain mutually beneficial relationships. An impressive body of literature also suggests that one's social network (i.e., social resourcefulness) can mediate the effects of life's demands on health and well-being (e.g., Berkman, 1985; S. Cohen & Wills, 1985)....
|
