We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2020
While a body of research has evidenced the role of pain coping in chronic pain adjustment, the role of coping flexibility in chronic pain adjustment has received little research attention. Coping flexibility can be conceptualized with two dimensions, cognitive and behavioral. The cognitive dimension of coping flexibility (or coping appraisal flexibility) refers to one's appraisal of pain experience when changing coping strategies whereas the behavioral dimension of coping flexibility denotes the variety of coping responses individuals use in dealing with stressful demands.
The aim of this paper is to present preliminary findings on the role of coping flexibility in chronic pain adjustment by assessing 3 competing models of pain coping flexibility (see Figs. 1–3).
Patients with chronic pain (n = 300) completed a battery of questionnaire assessing pain disability, discriminative facility, need for closure, pain coping behavior, coping flexibility, and pain catastrophizing. The 3 hypothesized models were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). In all models tested, need for closure and discriminative facility were fitted as the dispositional cognitive and motivational factors respectively underlying the coping mechanism, whereas pain catastrophizing and pain intensity were included as covariates.
Results of SEM showed that the hierarchical model obtained the best data-model fit (CFI = 0.96) whereas the other two models did not attain an accept fit (CFI ranging from 0.70–0.72).
Our results lend tentative support for the hierarchical model of pain coping flexibility that coping variability mediated the effects of coping appraisal flexibility on disability.
The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
Fig. 1 The hierarchical model (S-B χ2 = 40.61, df = 24, CFI = 0.959, NNFI = 0.94, EMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI = 0.02, 0.09).
Fig. 2 The coping appraisal flexibility model (S-B χ2 = 121.62, df = 19, CFI = 0.723, NNFI = 0.59, RMSEA = 0.17, 90% CI = 0.14, 0.19).
Fig. 3 The parallel model (S-B χ2 = 147.51, df = 25, CFI = 0.695, NNFI = 0.56, EMSEA = 0.56, 90% CI = 0.13, 0.18).
Fig. 1 The hierarchical model (S-B χ2 = 40.61, df = 24, CFI = 0.959, NNFI = 0.94, EMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI = 0.02, 0.09).
Fig. 2 The coping appraisal flexibility model (S-B χ2 = 121.62, df = 19, CFI = 0.723, NNFI = 0.59, RMSEA = 0.17, 90% CI = 0.14, 0.19).
Fig. 3 The parallel model (S-B χ2 = 147.51, df = 25, CFI = 0.695, NNFI = 0.56, EMSEA = 0.56, 90% CI = 0.13, 0.18).
You have
Access
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.