Page 199 - PhD GT

Principal components analysis of responses to the original and the adapted Coping Behaviours Inventory (CBI) in Sample 6 (n=230) as measured at t1 yielded a 9 factor solution (eigenvalues greater than 1) with the first factor accounting for 30.3% of the variance. The second factor had an eigenvalue of 2.2 (see Figure 9.1).
Figure 9.1 Component structure for the original and adapted CBI: Sample 6 (n=230)
In this sample, all items had loadings greater than .4 on the first factor with the exception of items 2, 8, 10 and 12. Thus a single main factor emerged for the Coping Behaviours Inventory in the samples examined. This finding is at odds with that of Litman and her colleagues whose Principal Components Analysis of the Coping Behaviours Inventory produced a four factor solution as described in Chapter 6. These factors were described as i) positive thinking, ii) negative thinking, iii) avoidance and iv) distraction/substitution (Litman et al. 1983 p. 270). The difference in findings between the present study and the Litman study may be accounted for by the fact that the original scale was administered almost twenty years before the present study. However, in the pilot phase of the present study considerable care was taken to ensure that the items were relevant and meaningful to contemporary addiction agency clients; more likely the difference is attributable to the number of factors chosen. In the Litman study the first factor had an eigenvalue of 13.9 and accounted for 38.6% of the variance, while eigenvalues for the remainder of the factors were below 2 and accounted for an additional 12% approximately of the variance. Though the remainder of the factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1 in the present study were difficult to interpret, it may be that seemingly different findings were a result of the interpretation of the factors rather than their
194