Coping Flexibility in Young Adults: Cross-Cultural Validation of the Coping Flexibility Scale (CFS) across Six Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study assessed the psychometric properties and cross-cultural validity of the Coping Flexibility Scale (CFS; Kato, 2012) among young adults aged 18-25 years from six countries (Spain, Argentina, the United States, Canada, England, and South Africa). Two independent samples were used: a multinational sample of university students (Study 1; n = 3,753) and a Spanish community sample of people who use cannabis (Study 2; n = 612). We tested competing structural models, including a 10-item two-factor model and a unidimensional alternative, using confirmatory factor analysis. Consistent with past research, items 2 and 7 showed poor psychometric performance and were removed. The final 8-item unidimensional model showed good fit and internal consistency across countries, sex, cannabis use status, university status, and data collection methods (online vs. face-to-face). Measurement invariance was supported across all groups. Correlations with mental health variables and emotion regulation provided additional evidence of construct validity, showing that higher coping flexibility was linked to better psychological adjustment. However, the relationships with cannabis use outcomes were small or non-significant, indicating that coping flexibility may not directly relate to cannabis consumption in this population. Notably, we validated the CFS among cannabis-using young adults, highlighting its usefulness in both general and at-risk groups. The findings emphasize the cross-cultural applicability of the revised unidimensional CFS and suggest that, in Western contexts, coping flexibility functions as a single adaptive process rather than a dual-process. This validated instrument offers a reliable tool for research and clinical screening of coping flexibility among diverse young adult populations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".