Measuring Coping Among Family Members with Substance-Misusing Relatives: Testing Competing Factor Structures of the Coping Questionnaire (CQ) in England and Italy

Figures & data

Figure 1. Competing measurement models of the Coping Questionnaire.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the affected family members in the different samples.

Sample	1	2	3	4	5
Country	England	England	England	Italy	Italy
References	Orford et al., 1998	Copello et al., 2009	The UKATT Research Team, 2001	Arcidiacono et al., 2010	Velleman et al., 2008
Sample size	100	143	80	113	52
Design	Cross-sectional	Longitudinal	Cross-sectional	Cross-sectional	Longitudinal
Affected family member’s gender
Male	25%	14%	13%	25%	10%
Female	75%	86%	87%	75%	90%
Affected family member’s age
Mean age		45		48	46
40 years old or younger	42%	36%		31%
At least 41 years old	58%	61%		69%
Relationship of misusing relative to affected family member (Misusing relative’s status)
Partner/Spouse	55%	53%	61%	33%	38%
Parent	5%	6%	1%	7%	6%
Children	35%	36%	13%	47%	48%
Main substance of misuse
Alcohol	60%	59%	100%	40%	35%
Drugs	40%	36%		44%	54%
Both		5%		16%	11%

Table 2. Degree of model fit of the three measurement models in England and Italy.

	χ²	Df	RMSEA	Cfit of RMSEA	CFI	TLI
Model 1: One-factor model
England	1446.25	405	0.089	<0.001	0.824	0.811
Italy	805.68	405	0.77	<0.001	0.812	0.798
Model 2: Three first-order factors model
England	1306.58	401	0.084	<0.001	0.847	0.837
Italy	729.00	401	0.070	<0.001	0.846	0.833
Model 3: Bifactor model
England	801.45	375	0.060	0.003	0.928	0.916
Italy	564.44	375	0.055	0.173	0.911	0.897

Note. χ² - Chi Square test statistics; RMSEA - Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation; Cfit of RMSEA - Closeness of fit test related to RMSEA; CFI - Comparative Fit Index; TLI - Tucker-Lewis Index. All χ² test statistics showed significant result at least p < .001 level.

Table 3. Standardized factor loadings and reliability indices of the bifactor model.

Item	General Coping Factor		Engaged Factor		Tolerant-Inactive Factor		Withdrawal Factor
	UK^a	Italy	UK^a	Italy	UK^a	Italy	UK^a	Italy
1. Refused to lend him money or to help him out financial in other ways.	0.36	0.36	0.28	−0.11
5. Sat down together with him and talked frankly about what could be done about his drinking.	0.54	0.70	0.45	0.43
6. Started an argument with him about his drinking.	0.74	0.73	0.34	0.29
7. Pleaded with him about his consumption of alcohol.	0.76	0.73	0.37	0.30
9. Made it quite clear to him that his drinking was causing you upset and that it had got to change.	0.76	0.78	0.51	0.48
11. Tried to limit his drinking by making some rule about it, for example forbidding drinking in the house, or stopping him bringing drinking friends home.	0.50	0.38	0.53	0.61
13. Encouraged him to take an oath or promise not to drink.	0.43	0.54	0.50	0.33
16. Got moody or emotional with him.	0.74	0.73	0.17	−0.37
17. Watched his every move or checked up on him or kept a close eye on him.	0.56	0.43	0.38	0.48
19. Made it clear that you won’t accept his reasons for drinking, or cover up for him.	0.52	0.66	0.44	0.27
21. Made clear to him your expectations of what he should do to contribute to the family.	0.53	0.55	0.41	0.46
25. Accused him of not loving you, or of letting you down.	0.66	0.68	0.25	0.14
26. Sat down with him to help him sort out the financial situation.	0.47	0.45	0.29	0.51
28. Searched for his drink or hidden or disposed of it yourself.	0.47	0.33	0.45	0.20
3. Put yourself out for him, for example by getting him to bed or by clearing up mess after him after he had been drinking.	0.59	0.49			0.09	0.20
4. Given him money even when you thought it would be spent on drink.	0.56	0.47			0.00	0.19
10. Felt too frightened to do anything.	0.57	0.49			0.36	0.21
14. Felt too hopeless to do anything.	0.63	0.46			0.38	0.55
20. Made threats that you didn’t really mean to carry out.	0.78	0.83			0.06	−0.12
23. Got in a state where you didn’t or couldn’t make any decision.	0.70	0.54			0.34	0.32
24. Accepted the situation as a part of life that couldn’t be changed.	0.18	0.20			0.55	0.55
27. When things have happened as a result of his drinking, made excuses for him, covered up for him, or taken the blame yourself.	0.68	0.35			0.00	0.12
30. Tried to keep things looking normal, pretended all was well when it wasn’t or hidden the extent of his drinking.	0.71	0.29			0.10	0.38
2. Put the interests of other members of the family before his.	0.27	0.23					0.36	0.12
8. When he was under the influence of drink, left him alone to look after himself or kept out of his way.	0.51	0.28					0.28	0.71
12. Pursued your own interests or looked for new interests or occupation for yourself, or got more involved in a political, church, sports or other organization.	0.02	−0.12					0.70	0.65
15. Avoided him as much as possible because of his drinking.	0.36	0.42					0.59	0.57
18. Got on with your own things or acted as if he wasn’t there.	0.21	0.11					0.73	0.64
22. Stuck up for him or stood by him when others were criticizing him.	0.66	0.29					−0.32	−0.07
29. Sometimes put yourself first by looking after yourself or giving yourself treats.	0.12	−0.09					0.66	0.54
ECV^b	65%	60%	15%	16%	5%	8%	15%	16%
Omega	0.95	0.92	0.93	0.92	0.87	0.79	0.78	0.71
Omega hierarchical	0.81	0.78	0.29	0.18	0.09	0.20	0.51	0.63
Relative Omega^c	86%	85%	31%	20%	11%	25%	66%	89%
H	0.94	0.93	0.73	0.73	0.47	0.56	0.79	0.77
PUC^d	0.66	0.66

Note. Factor loadings presented by bold figures are significant at least p < .05 level. ^aUnited Kingdom (England). ^bExplained Common Variance (ECV). ^cRelative Omega = Omega hierarchical/Omega. ^dPercentage of Uncontaminated Correlations (PUC).

Table 4. Standardized regression coefficients of the covariates predicting the coping factors (MIMIC-model, Model 3).

	General Coping Factor	Engaged Factor	Tolerant-Inactive Factor	Withdrawal Factor
Family member’s country^a	0.32	-0.44	-0.54	0.13
Family member’s gender^b	0.06	0.01	0.22	0.01
Family member’s age^c	0.03	−0.23	−0.10	−0.16
Misusing relative is a partner^d	0.05	0.27	0.05	0.22
Misusing relative is a parent^d	−0.04	−0.07	0.13	0.16
Misusing relative is a child^d	−0.08	0.52	0.20	−0.03
Problematic substance: alcohol^e	−0.20	0.08	0.26	−0.02
Problematic substance: drug^e	−`0.06	0.04	0.12	0.00

Note. All figures are standardized regression coefficients (β). Estimates presented with bold figures are significant at least p < 0.05 level. Model fit indices: χ² (583) = 990.96; p < .001; CFI = 0.916; TLI = 0.902; RMSEA = 0.045. ^aFamily member’s country: coded as 0 = Italy, 1 = England. ^bFamily member’s gender: coded as 0 = Male, 1 = Female. ^cFamily member’s age: coded as 0 = 40 years or younger, 1 = At least 41 years old. ^dRelationship status of misusing relative to family member (partner, parent, child): coded as 0 = No, 1 = Yes. ^eMain problematic substance of misusing relative (alcohol, drug): coded as 0 = No, 1 = Yes or misuse of both substances.

Orford, J., Natera, G., Davies, J., Nava, A., Mora, J., Rigby, K., … Velleman5, R. (1998). Tolerate, engage or withdraw: A study of the structure of families coping with alcohol and drug problems in South West England and Mexico City. Addiction, 93(12), 1799–1813. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.931217996.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Copello, A., Templeton, L., Orford, J., Velleman, R., Patel, A., Moore, L., … Godfrey, C. (2009). The relative efficacy of two levels of a primary care intervention for family members affected by the addiction problem of a close relative: A randomized trial. Addiction, 104(1), 49–58. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02417.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

The UKATT Research Team. (2001). United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT): Hypotheses, design and methods. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 36(1), 11–21. 10.1093/alcalc/36.1.11

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arcidiacono, C., Velleman, R., Procentese, F., Berti, P., Albanesi, C., Sommantico, M., & Copello, A. (2010). Italian families living with relatives with alcohol or drugs problems. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 17(6), 659–680. doi:10.3109/09687630902824262

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Velleman, R., Arcidiacono, C., Procentese, F., Copello, A., & Sarnacchiaro, P. (2008). A 5-step intervention to help family members in Italy who live with substance misusers. Journal of Mental Health, 17(6), 643–655. doi:10.1080/09638230701677761

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar