Page 145 - PhD GT

Table 6.1 Correlations and comparisons between the means for responses at t1 and t2 to the adapted Coping Behaviours Inventory: Sample 5 (n=61)
Variables
CBITOTT1 CBITOTT2
Number of pairs
57
Correlation
.77
2-tail Means significance
.001 54.9 57.1*
2-tail significance
ns
* 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means
A significant positive correlation was found between the mean total scores at time 1 and time 2; the mean correlation between the individual items at t1 and t2 was .5. No significant difference was found between the means of the total scores at these two time points indicating that responses had not changed over the time period and therefore the correlation can be assumed to support the reliability of the instrument.
6.6 Discussion
Assessment of predictive validity was not part of this study as respondents in the validation sample were not followed up. The requirements of content and construct validity (Cronbach 1970) were addressed in the process of adapting the existing questionnaire, starting with the interviewing of a sample of participants at different stages of their addiction career and treatment, with a range of people who were stably abstinent to people who were embarking upon a course of treatment, checking statements elicited with items in the original questionnaire, eliminating statements that were duplicated and ensuring coverage of both cognitive and behavioural items in the final scale. Although content validity is hard to measure (Carmines & Zeller 1979), construct validity was addressed by ensuring that items in the questionnaire covered those coping strategies found in the substance misuse and coping behaviours literature reviewed. Cognitive items were more frequently used than behavioural items and this finding is consistent with previous findings in this field. The questionnaire has good face validity, the questions being straightforward enquiries about the performance of specific behaviours designed to avoid substance use.
In the original Litman study, four main factors were identified which were said to "adequately summarise this Inventory" (Litman 1983 pp. 271-272). These factors were identified as 'Positive Thinking', 'Negative Thinking', 'Avoidance / Distraction' and 'Seeking Social Supports'. In
139