↓ Skip to main content

A preliminary validation of the Brief COPE instrument for assessing coping strategies among people living with HIV in China

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Diseases of Poverty, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A preliminary validation of the Brief COPE instrument for assessing coping strategies among people living with HIV in China
Published in
Infectious Diseases of Poverty, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40249-015-0074-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiao-you Su, Joseph TF Lau, Winnie WS Mak, KC Choi, Tie-jian Feng, Xi Chen, Chu-liang Liu, Jun Liu, De Liu, Lin Chen, Jun-min Song, Yan Zhang, Guang-lu Zhao, Zhang-ping Zhu, Jin-quan Cheng

Abstract

The Brief COPE instrument has been utilized to conduct research on various populations, including people living with HIV (PLWH). However, the questionnaire constructs when applied to PLWH have not been subjected to thorough factor validation. A total of 258 PLWH were recruited from two provinces of China. They answered questions involving the scales of three instruments: the Brief COPE, the Perceived Social Support Scale, and the Perceived Discrimination Scale for PLWH. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were conducted. The CFA found a poor goodness of fit to the data. The subsequent EFA identified six preliminary factors, forming subscales with Cronbach's alphas, which ranged from 0.61 to 0.80. Significant correlation coefficients between the subscales and measures of perceived social support and perceived discrimination were reported, giving preliminary support to the validity of the new empirical factor structure. This study showed that the original factor structure of the Brief COPE instrument, when applied to PLWH in China, did not fit the data. Thus, the Brief COPE should be applied to various populations and cultures with caution. The new factor structure established by the EFA is only preliminary and requires further validation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 21%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Researcher 9 10%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 17%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 16 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2019.
All research outputs
#8,195,468
of 15,606,530 outputs
Outputs from Infectious Diseases of Poverty
#251
of 586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,628
of 250,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infectious Diseases of Poverty
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,530 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them