Brief Method of Evaluating Coping with Disease: versions for men and women

Abstract

INTRODUCTION. A preliminary version of the Brief Method of Evaluating Coping with Disease (BMoECwD) was developed to facilitate clinical assessment of diabetes during routine visits. The tool has a relatively high reliability with some limitations regarding accuracy. The preliminary version of BMoECwD contains questions with no gender specificity and this may cause application difficulties. The aim of the study is presentation of psychometric parameters of BMoECwD in versions for men and women. In comparison to the previous version questions were modified to reflect gender-related differences in interests.
RESULTS. The reliability of the tool was assessed in a group of 1249 subjects with diabetes. In women (W) and men (M) the following Cronbach’s alfa coefficients were found: avoidance-focused style: W - 0.65; M - 0.67; emotion-focused style: W - 0.67; M - 0.68; task-focused style: W - 0.71; M - 0.75; identifying-- best-solution style: W - 0.55; M - 0.59. We assessed the accuracy using the Polish version of the CISS questionnaire and the studied versions of BMoECwD questionnaires in a group of 229 subjects. A moderately positive correlation (r = 0.42) was found between results for task-focused style and combined results for identifying-best-solution style. The style focused on experiencing emotions showed a moderately positive correlation (r = 0.29) with the style focused on emotions and passiveness. We also found a moderately positive correlation (r = 0.41) between results for task-focused style and combined results for the problem-solving style and identifying-best-solution style
CONCLUSIONS. The Brief Method of Evaluating Coping with Disease in its version adapted to the patient’s sex is a very short and easy to use tool for everyday clinical practice which assists clinical diagnosis and psychoeducational intervention. The relatively good reliability and moderate accuracy of the method additionally allow for its application in research. (Diabet. Prakt. 2008; 9: 1-11)