Learning from unreliability: the importance of inconsistency in coping dynamics

The role of response stability in the measurement of coping is examined with a focus on the unique information that can be gleaned from low test–retest reliability (‘inconsistencyʹ). Data from two studies are presented in which a card sort measure of coping flexibility was used on people with three different chronic diseases and the elderly (n=219). We begin by testing the hypothesis that the low stability reflects unreliability due to measurement artifacts, such as random error, low ecological validity, long test–retest interval, surrogate assistance, or error due to completing the questionnaire in multiple sittings. Our findings suggest that surrogate assistance in completing questionnaires was the only measurement artifact associated with low stability. We then tested the proposition that low stability reflects a genuine behavior pattern (i.e. inconsistency). Hierarchical modeling revealed that measurement artifact accounted for less than one percent of the variance in inconsistency in reported coping behavior and that an additional 21% of the variance could be explained by the behavioral factors, including neuropsychological problems (9%), psychological morbidity (4%), locus of control (3%) and eudaimonistic well-being (5%). Thus inconsistency in reported coping behavior was better explained by behavioral and psychosocial factors than by the tested measurement artifacts. We conclude that inconsistency in reported coping behavior does indeed reflect a meaningful behavior pattern, rather than simply measurement artifact.