Cancer Coping Questionnaire

Mixed Cancer: (Moorey et al., 2003; n = 42, Mean Age = 55 years)

• Mean CCQ total = 32.61 (8.58)
• Mean CCQ interpersonal = 16.41 (6.66)

Women with Breast Cancer: (Moorey et al., 2003; n = 50, Mean Age = 53 years)

• Mean CCQ total = 33.27 (9.12)
• Mean CCQ interpersonal = 13.16 (4.39)

Referred to Psycho-Oncology: (Moorey et al., 2003; n = 48, Mean Age = 51 years)

• Mean CCQ total = 28.06 (8.97)
• Mean CCQ interpersonal = 13.42 (5.74)

Women with Breast Cancer: (Moorey et al.; n = 25)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for the Total Individual CCQ (ICC = 0.90)
• Excellent test-retest reliability for the Diversion subscale (ICC = 0.81)
• Adequate test-retest reliability for the Positive Focus subscale (ICC = 0.67)

Women with Breast Cancer with Partners: (Moorey et al; n = 19)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for the Interpersonal Scale (ICC = 0.84)

Women with Breast Cancer (Moorey et al. n = 25)

• Excellent internal consistency of Total Individual CCQ (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87)

Women with Breast Cancer with Partners (Moorey et al. n = 19)

• Excellent internal consistency for the Interpersonal Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82)

Convergent validity

Mixed Cancer (Moorey et al. n = 140)

• Adequate convergent validity between the CCQ Total score and the Active Behavioural Coping method of the Coping Response Indices (CRI) (correlation coefficient = 0.61)
• Adequate convergent validity between the CCQ Total score and most CRI “focus of coping” subscales: Logical Analysis (0.31); Information Seeking (0.33); Problem Solving (0.43); and Affective Regulation (0.53)

Referred to Psycho-Oncology: (Moorey et al.; n = 48)

• Excellent convergent validity between Fighting Spirit in the Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (MAC) and CCQ Total Individual Score (0.66)
• Adequate convergent validity between Fighting Spirit in the Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (MAC) and CCQ Interpersonal Scale (0.40)

Discriminant validity

Mixed Cancer: (Moorey et al.; n = 140)

• Adequate discriminant validity of CCQ Total Individaul Scale with the Depression score of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) (correlation coefficient = -0.32)
• Poor discriminant validity of CCQ Total Individual Scale with HADS-Anxiety (correlation coefficient = -0.05)

Women with Breast Cancer (Moorey et al. n = 25)

• Adequate discriminant validity between Helplessness/Hopelessness subscale of Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (MAC) with CCQ positive focus (-0.35) and Planning (-0.31) subscales
• Adequate discriminant validity between Individual CCQ Diversion subscale and Mental Adjustment to Cancer (MAC) Fatalism (0.30) and Avoidance (0.30) subscales
• Discriminant validity between Individual CCQ Positive Focus subscale and MAC Fighting Spirit subscale (0.035)

Referred to Psycho-Oncology: (Moorey et al.; n = 48)

• Adequate discriminant validity between the MAC helplessness/hopelessness subscale with the CCQ Individual Score (-0.56)

Content validity was assessed by five members of the Psychological Medicine Unit at the Royal Marsden Hospital who were familiar with the nature of APT. “They were asked to judge the degree to which the behaviours described in the CCQ (1) would change as a result of APT on a scale from +2 (maximum increase) to 2 (maximum decrease). Mean ratings for adaptive coping strategies was +1.27 and for maladaptive coping strategies -1.05 (p.333).” Ambiguous questions were reviewed with 5 raters and four items were excluded from the questionnaire. Wording of the questions and response format were addressed and five questions were added after this meeting. The article states that “although the wording of the questions changed with the development of the CCQ, the skills addressed remained the same as in this original version. It was therefore not necessary to repeat this assessment of content validity in the second version of CCQ." (Moorey et al., 2003; p. 333)

"In the development of the questionnaire attention has been paid to the face validity of the instrument (through modifying it in response to reactions from therapists familiar with the therapy). The longer 41 item questionnaire has been reduced to 21 items on the basis of factor analysis. It is a brief and  ‘user  friendly’  instrument  which  can  be completed by any patients with cancer, but which includes items specific to Adjuvant Psychological Therapy” (Moorey et al., 2003; p. 339)