Use of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations in a clinically depressed sample: Factor structure, personality correlates, and prediction of distress1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker, 1990) is a self‐report measure of Emotion‐, Task‐, and Avoidance‐oriented coping. The psychometric properties of the CISS were evaluated in a large sample of outpatients with major depressive disorder ( N = 298). The CISS scales demonstrated good reliability and support for their factorial validity was obtained. Relationships between the CISS scales and the broad personality domains from the five‐factor model of personality, as well as two measures of emotional distress, were examined. Less‐adaptive coping strategies (i.e., Emotion‐oriented coping) were associated with less‐adaptive personality traits (i.e., Neuroticism) and with psychological distress (i.e., Depression), whereas the reverse was found regarding adaptive coping strategies (i.e., Task‐orientated coping). The incremental validity of the CISS was demonstrated by multiple‐regression analyses that found two CISS scales accounted for significant variance in psychological distress beyond that contributed by the demographic and personality variables. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".