These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A Brief Measure for the Assessment of Competence in Coping With Death: The Coping With Death Scale Short Version.
    Author: Galiana L, Oliver A, De Simone G, Linzitto JP, Benito E, Sansó N.
    Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage; 2019 Feb; 57(2):209-215. PubMed ID: 30447381.
    Abstract:
    CONTEXT: The coping with death competence is of great importance for palliative care professionals, who face daily exposure to death. It can keep them from suffering compassion fatigue and burnout, thus enhancing the quality of the care provided. Despite its relevance, there are only two measures of professionals' ability to cope with death. Specifically, the Coping with Death Scale (CDS) has repeatedly shown psychometric problems with some of its items. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a short version of the CDS. METHODS: Nine items from the original CDS were chosen for the short version. Two cross-sectional surveys were conducted in Spanish (N = 385) and Argentinian (N = 273) palliative care professionals. The CDS and the Professional Quality of Life Scale were used in this study. Statistical analyses included two confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), followed by a standard measurement invariance routine. Reliability estimates and evidence of validity based on relations with other measures were also gathered. RESULTS: CFA models had excellent fit in both the Spanish (χ2(27) = 107.043, P < 0.001; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.978; Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.970; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.093 [0.075, 0.112]; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = 0.030) and Argentinian (χ2(27) = 102.982, P < 0.001; CFI = 0.963; TLI = 0.950; RMSEA = 0.106 [0.085, 0.128]) samples. A standard measurement invariance routine was carried out. The most parsimonious model (χ2(117) = 191.738, P < 0.001; CFI = 0.987; TLI = 0.992; RMSEA = 0.046 [0.034, 0.058]; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = 0.043) offered evidence of invariance across countries, with no latent mean differences. Evidence of reliability and evidence of validity based on relations with other measures were also appropriate. CONCLUSION: Results indicated the psychometric boundaries of the short version of the CDS.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]