Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2002, pp. 215-226
© 2002 Society of Pediatric Psychology
Parent Reports of Coping and Stress Responses in Children With Recurrent Abdominal Pain
University of Vermont
All correspondence should be sent to Bruce E. Compas, Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405. E-mail: bruce.compas{at}uvm.edu .
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Objective: To examine relationships among coping, stress responses, pain, somatic symptoms, and anxious/depressed symptoms in a sample of children and adolescents with recurrent abdominal pain (RAP).
Method: We assessed parents' reports of coping and involuntary responses to stress in relation to pain, somatic symptoms, and symptoms of anxiety and depression in a sample of 174 children and adolescents with RAP.
Results: Based on parent reports, children's primary control engagement coping (e.g., problem solving, emotional modulation) and secondary control engagement coping (e.g., acceptance, distraction, positive thinking) in response to pain were associated with fewer somatic complaints and symptoms of anxiety and depression; secondary control engagement coping was also associated with less pain. Involuntary engagement (e.g., physiological reactivity, rumination) and disengagement (e.g., escape, inaction) responses to pain were associated with more somatic symptoms and higher levels of anxiety and depression.
Conclusions: We highlight implications of these findings for understanding processes of coping and stress reactivity in children with RAP.
Key words: recurrent abdominal pain; children; coping; stress responses; somatic symptoms; anxiety/depression.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) is one of the most common types of pediatric pain, affecting up to 20% of children and adolescents (Colletti, 1998
). Children
with RAP experience at least three episodes of abdominal pain within 3 months
(Apley, 1975). Whereas some
children with RAP have a detectable disease or organic cause of the pain, most
children do not. This lack of an identifiable pathological condition is often
frustrating to physicians and families and leaves limited treatment options.
In addition, children with RAP have been shown to have higher levels of
symptoms of depression, anxiety, and somatization than do well children (e.g.,
Garber, Zeman, & Walker,
1990; Walker, Garber, & Green, 1993), pointing to the role of
psychological factors in RAP.
Research examining cognitive and behavioral responses to recurrent pain
(e.g., Gil, Williams, Thompson, &
Kinney, 1991), and more specifically to RAP (Walker, Garber,
Smith, & Van Slyke, 1997), suggests that how children respond to pain may
affect their level of pain and psychological adjustment. Models of coping and
stress responses provide a framework for understanding adaptive and
maladaptive responses to stress in general and to pain in particular.
Responses to stress include both voluntary coping efforts and involuntary/
automatic stress responses (Compas,
Connor, Osowiecki, & Welch, 1997;
Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen,
& Wadsworth, 2001), both of which may be important in
understanding and adapting to chronic pain. Coping is defined as voluntary
efforts to regulate emotion, thought, behavior, physiology, and the
environment in response to stressful events or circumstances
(Compas et al., 2001). Coping
responses include three categories: primary control engagement coping, or
efforts to directly change the stressor or one's emotions (problem solving,
emotional expression, emotional modulation); secondary control engagement
coping, or attempts to adapt to the stressor by regulating attention or
cognition (cognitive restructuring, positive thinking, acceptance,
distraction); and disengagement coping, or efforts to orient away from the
stressor or one's emotions (wishful thinking, avoidance, denial). Involuntary
stress responses fall into two categories: involuntary engagement (rumination,
intrusive thoughts, physiological arousal, emotional arousal, impulsive
action) and involuntary disengagement (emotional numbing, cognitive
interference, inaction, escape)
(Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen,
& Saltzman, 2000).
Studies of children and adolescents coping with pain have generally found
that children who use disengagement coping strategies (e.g., avoidance) to try
to manage their pain show greater pain and distress (e.g.,
Gil et al., 1991). Primary
control coping strategies, or attempts by the individual to act directly on
the pain or other sources of stress, are related to poorer adjustment to
uncontrollable stressors, including some forms of pain, but are related to
better adjustment with controllable illness-related stressors (e.g.,
Band & Weisz, 1990). In
contrast, secondary control engagement coping strategies, which are directed
at adapting to and engaging with pain by regulating attention or cognition,
have been shown to be helpful with uncontrollable, pain-related stress (e.g.,
Schanberg, Lefebvre, Keefe, Kredich, &
Gil, 1997; Weisz, McCabe &
Dennig, 1994).
Research on children's coping with RAP has been more limited. In one of the
few empirical studies in this area, Walker et al.
(1997) examined children's
reports of active coping (similar to primary control engagement coping),
accommodative coping (similar to secondary control engagement coping), and
passive coping (similar to disengagement coping). Passive (disengagement)
coping responses were strongly associated with increased levels of pain and
somatic and depressive symptoms. In contrast, accomodative (secondary control)
coping responses were generally related to decreased levels of pain. Active
(primary control) responses were associated with increased levels of pain and
somatic complaints, but decreased depressive symptoms. Additional information
is now needed about the types of coping that may be associated with fewer
depressive, anxious, and somatic symptoms, central components of the
constellation of symptoms associated with RAP.
Studies of RAP have also begun to consider the role of involuntary or
automatic responses in pain perception and behavior, typically autonomic
nervous system reactivity and recovery. Results of laboratory studies have
been mixed, with some suggesting that children with RAP show slower
sympathetic nervous system recovery from pain than do well children (Rubin,
Barbero, & Sibinga, 1972), and others showing no difference in initial
reactivity or recovery (Feuerstein, Barr,
Francoeur, Houle, & Rafman, 1982) or a trend suggestive of
increased reactivity (Battistella, Carra,
Zaninotto, Ruffilli, & Da Dalt, 1992). In addition, extensive
relevant literature indicates that stress reactivity or involuntary engagement
(e.g., intrusive thoughts, physiological reactivity, emotional arousal) is
related to internalizing problems in children (e.g.,
Biederman et al., 1990;
Kagan, Snidman, & Arcus,
1995), and highly reactive children show higher illness rates
under increased stress (Boyce et al.,
1995).
The purpose of this study was to examine the relation of parental reports
of children's coping to levels of pain, somatic complaints, and symptoms of
anxiety/depression in children and adolescents with RAP. Parent reports were
selected for two reasons (cf. Holmbeck et
al., 1998). First, parent reports allow for the assessment of a
wide age range of children and adolescents, including younger children who may
not be able to provide reliable self-reports. Second, parents are most likely
to initiate the process of seeking medical treatment, and therefore it is
important to understand their perspective on their children's functioning. In
addition, this study sought to extend research by examining the role of
parental report of children's involuntary responses to pain as predictors of
pain and emotional and somatic symptoms. We hypothesized that primary control
and secondary control engagement coping would be related to lower levels of
pain, somatic complaints, and emotional distress. Further, we hypothesized
that disengagement coping strategies would be related to increased levels of
pain, somatic complaints, and distress. Finally, we hypothesized that
involuntary engagement and disengagement responses would be linked to
increased pain, somatic complaints, and distress.
|
Method |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Participants
Participants were 190 children and adolescents with RAP and one of their parents (93% mothers). Due to missing data, 16 cases were removed from analyses. Subsequent results are reported on a reduced sample of 174 participants. The children's ages ranged from 7 to 18 years, with a mean of 11.6 years (SD = 2.9); 66.7% of the sample was female. The mean occupational status of the parents, based on the Hollings-head Occupational Scores (Hollingshead, 1975
),
was 6.0 (SD = 2.2), or that of technicians, semi-professionals, and
small business owners. The sample was primarily Caucasian (94%), which is
representative of the demographics of Vermont and northern New York State,
where the sample was drawn.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from a pediatric gastroenterology practice that
serves northern Vermont and northern New York state; therefore, this sample is
considered a representative sample of children and adolescents with RAP who
are referred to a specialist. A retrospective sample was recruited at the
outset of the study and was drawn from all RAP patients seen within the
previous year (n = 41). All new RAP patients were then recruited at
the time of the initial medical evaluation for RAP (n = 133) and
recruitment was continued over the next 2 years.
To classify cases as functional versus organic abdominal pain and to record specific diagnoses, medical chart reviews were conducted by three research assistants who were trained using a procedure developed by one of the authors (RBC; details about the chart review procedure can be obtained from the authors). Ten charts were randomly selected from the sample and were independently coded by two raters for the purposes of training. Training was continued until all raters reached at least 90% reliability with the ratings of one of the authors (RBC), who served as the expert rater. Chart reviews revealed that 52.9% of patients had functional pain (e.g., functional abdominal pain, irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia), 33.9% had an organic cause (e.g., gastroesophageal reflux, lactose malabsorption, Crohn's disease, dyspepsia, gastritis), and 12.1% had an unknown etiology of their pain (see Table I). The category of unknown etiology was used to categorize patients who did not complete follow-up tests or procedures that would have provided necessary diagnostic information. To be considered in the functional pain category, participants had no evidence of an underlying disorder causing the pain. At their initial appointments with the pediatric gastroenterologist, participants reported a mean of 3.77 symptoms (SD = 1.83), were assessed with a mean of 3.65 tests (SD = 3.65), and reported having abdominal pain for a mean of 23.26 months (SD = 29.05; range: 3-120).
|
Participants were considered eligible for the study if they had experienced
abdominal pain at least three times within at least 3 months
(Apley, 1975) and they were
between the ages of 7 and 18 years old. In the retrospective sample (contacted
by letter), 39% of those eligible agreed to participate and returned
questionnaires (mean of 243 days since diagnosis, SD = 115). In the
group recruited in person, 93% of eligible patients agreed to participate and
69% of the parents of eligible patients completed questionnaires (mean of 16
days since diagnosis, SD = 19). Comparisons of demographic, medical,
and psychological variables between the two groups showed that they did not
differ on any variables. Therefore, the groups were combined for subsequent
analyses.
Informed consent was obtained from parents and assent was obtained from children and adolescents. Parents and adolescents completed written questionnaires at home (results from the adolescents' reports are presented elsewhere; Boyer et al., 20001). Children and parents were each paid $20 for their participation in the study if their questionnaires were returned within 10 days, and $10 if returned after 10 days.
Measures
Abdominal Pain Symptoms. Symptoms of abdominal pain were measured
with parents' reports on the Abdominal Pain Index (API;
Walker et al., 1997), a
five-item measure that includes ratings of frequency, duration, and intensity
of pain. The frequency of abdominal pain within the last 2 weeks is rated on a
6-point scale from "not at all" to "every day." The
daily frequency is assessed on a similar 6-point scale from "none"
to "constant during the day." The typical duration of pain is
rated on a 9-point scale from "none" to "all day." The
typical intensity and maximum intensity are rated using a 10-point scale
ranging from "no pain" to "the most pain possible."
Because the items on the API use different scales, responses to the five pain
ratings were standardized, and a sum was computed to provide an index of
abdominal pain. Alpha reliability for the API in previous studies has ranged
from.80 to.93 (Walker et al.,
1997); the alpha for this sample was.78.
Emotional and Behavioral Problems. The Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL; Achenbach, 1991)
measured participants' levels of symptoms of anxiety and depression and
somatic complaints. The CBCL is a 118-item checklist of problem behaviors and
competencies that parents rate from not true (0) to very true or often true
(2) of their child in the past 6 months. The CBCL assesses internalizing
(anxiety/depression, social withdrawal, somatic complaints) and externalizing
(aggression, delinquency) emotional and behavioral problems. Because of their
relevance to symptoms associated with RAP, scores from the anxiety/depression
and somatic complaints scales were used in this study. Data are reported as
normalized T scores based on age and sex norms, but raw scores were used in
the analyses to allow for maximum variance. Reliability and validity of the
CBCL are well established.
Coping and Involuntary Responses to Stress. Coping and involuntary
responses to stress were measured with the parent form of the abdominal pain
version of the Responses to Stress Questionnaire (RSQ;
Connor-Smith et al., 2000).
For this version of the RSQ, the stressor is identified in each item as a
"stomachache." The RSQ includes 57 items reflecting volitional
coping efforts as well as involuntary responses to pain. Participants indicate
how true each item is with respect to their responses to the stress of
abdominal pain in the last 6 months on a 4-point scale ("not at all
true" to "often true").
Items on the RSQ were selected to reflect 10 categories of coping and 9
categories of involuntary responses to stress that represent both engagement
and disengagement responses. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a
five-factor model (Connor-Smith et al.,
2000). Primary control engagement coping includes problem solving
(e.g., My daughter tries to think of different ways to make her stomachache
feel better or go away. One plan she thought of is: —), emotional
expression (e.g., My son lets someone or something know about his
feelings—parent, teacher, friend), and emotional modulation (e.g., My
daughter keeps her feelings under control when she has to, then lets them out
when they won't make things worse). Secondary control engagement coping
includes distraction (e.g., My daughter thinks about happy things to take her
mind off of her stomachache or her emotions), acceptance (e.g., My son
realizes that he just has to live with things the way they are), positive
thinking (e.g., My daughter tells herself that everything will be all right),
and cognitive restructuring (e.g., When my son has a stomachache, he thinks
about things he is learning from the situation or something good that will
come from it). Disengagement coping includes avoidance (e.g., My daughter
tries not to think about her stomachache, to forget all about it), denial
(e.g., When my son gets a stomachache, he says to himself, "This isn't
real"), and wishful thinking (e.g., My daughter deals with her
stomachaches by wishing they would just go away, that everything would work
itself out). Involuntary engagement responses include intrusive thoughts
(e.g., When my son is having a stomachache, he can't stop thinking about it
when he tries to sleep, or he has bad dreams about it), rumination (e.g., When
my daughter gets stomachaches, she can't stop thinking about how she is
feeling), emotional arousal (e.g., When my son has a stomachache, right away
he feels—angry, sad, worried/anxious), physiological arousal (e.g., When
my daughter has stomachaches, she feels it in other places in her
body—her heart races, her breathing speeds up, her muscles get tight),
and impulsive action (e.g., When my son has a stomachache, sometimes he acts
without thinking). Finally, involuntary disengagement responses include
emotional numbing (e.g., My daughter doesn't feel like herself when she has a
stomachache, it's like she's far away), cognitive interference (e.g., My son's
mind just goes blank when he has a stomachache, he can't think at all), escape
(e.g., My daughter just has to get away from everyone when she has
stomachaches; she can't stop herself), and inaction (e.g., My son just freezes
when he has a stomachache, he can't do anything).
In this study, scores for the five factors were recalculated on each scale
as a proportion of total responses on the RSQ, and these proportions were used
in all correlations and path analyses. In previous studies, proportional
scoring has been shown to be important for coping research, as it controls for
the total amount of responses of each individual, thereby providing an index
of the relative amount of each response category used
(Osowiecki & Compas, 1999;
Vitaliano, Maiuro, Russo, & Becker,
1987).
In previous studies of adolescents' responses to economic stress and
parental conflict, alphas for parents' reports on the five factors ranged
from.67 to.88 (Connor-Smith et al.,
2000; Wadsworth & Compas,
in press). In this study, alphas (using item scores) on the five
factors for parents' reports were: primary control coping =.68, secondary
control coping =.65, disengagement coping =.53, involuntary engagement =.86,
involuntary disengagement =.69. Convergent validity correlations between
parents' and adolescents' reports on the RSQ are significant and moderate in
magnitude (mean rs from.24 to.48), and significantly higher than
discriminant validity correlations
(Connor-Smith et al., 2000).
Test-retest reliability on a sample of adolescents ranged from.69 to.81 (mean
of.77) for the five factors (Connor-Smith
et al., 2000).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Independent-samples t tests compared functional and organic groups on the demographic variables of gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), parent who completed questionnaires, number of months with pain, number of symptoms, and number of procedures. Only the number of symptoms reported at the initial visit with the physician was significantly different (t[149] = 3.73, p <.01). Patients with organic pain had a higher number of symptoms (M = 4.4, SD = 2.1) than patients with functional pain (M = 3.4, SD = 1.5).
For the psychological variables, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using the independent variable of medical status (organic vs. functional) and eight dependent variables: the five factors from the RSQ, two CBCL factors (anxiety/depression, somatic complaints), and the single API score. Using Wilks's criterion, the overall MANOVA was significant, F(8, 142) = 2.05, p <.05. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to explore which of the outcome variables differed by diagnostic status. The only significant differences were found on the RSQ—participants with organic pain used more secondary control engagement coping, F(1, 149) = 6.69, p <.05; and participants with functional pain were higher in involuntary engagement responses to stress (e.g., rumination, physiological arousal, emotional arousal), F(1, 149) = 8.15, p <.01.
Means and standard deviations for the pain and psychological variables are displayed in Table II. Parents reported that their children were experiencing moderate levels of pain and exhibited moderately elevated symptoms of anxiety and depression (mean T score of 57) and high levels of somatic symptoms on the CBCL (mean T score of 66). Although parents reported that their children used all three types of coping, scores were higher for primary control engagement coping strategies (M = 2.78, SD = 0.53) than either secondary control engagement coping strategies (M = 2.08, SD = 0.46; t[174] = 16.07, p <.001) or disengagement coping strategies (M = 2.12, SD = 0.41; t[174] = 14.26, p < 001). Proportion scores on the RSQ factors were primary control engagement coping.21, secondary control engagement coping.21, disengagement coping.16, involuntary engagement.23, and involuntary disengagement.18.
|
Gender was not significantly related to pain or psychological symptoms. However, parents reported that girls responded to their pain with significantly more involuntary engagement than boys (t[172] = -2.07, p =.04). Age was related only to primary control coping (see Table II).
Correlational Analyses
The correlations of the RSQ factors with each other and with pain, somatic
symptoms, and symptoms of anxiety/depression are presented in
Table II. Disengagement coping
was negatively related to pain; however, none of the other coping strategies
or involuntary responses was significantly related to level of pain. Symptoms
of anxiety/depression and somatic symptoms on the CBCL were unrelated to
reports of pain on the API. Consistent with hypotheses, correlational analyses
showed that primary control coping and secondary control coping were inversely
related to somatic symptoms, whereas involuntary engagement and disengagement
responses were positively correlated with somatic symptoms. Similarly, primary
control coping and secondary control coping were inversely related to levels
of anxiety/depression symptoms, whereas involuntary engagement and
disengagement were positively correlated with symptoms of anxiety/depression.
Disengagement coping was unrelated either to somatic symptoms or
anxiety/depression.
Model Testing Procedures
Path modeling was used to test the hypothesized models. Maximum likelihood
estimates of the model coefficients were obtained using AMOS
(Arbuckle, 1997). As
proportional scoring was used for the RSQ factors, it was not possible to
enter all five factors into one model. (In proportional scoring, the scores of
the five factors sum to one. Thus, if all five scales are included in a single
analysis, any one of the five factors is a perfect linear function of the
other four.) Therefore, the association of the three coping factors with pain,
somatic complaints, and level of anxiety/depression was tested in one model,
and the relations of the two involuntary factors with pain, somatic
complaints, and level of anxiety/depression was tested in a second model. Age
was not included as a predictor in the models, given the lack of relation
shown between age and the outcome variables in correlations. Models were also
tested that included age as a predictor of coping (
2[5] =
8.97, p =.110, Goodness of Fit Indices [GFI] =.98) and age as a predictor of
involuntary responses (2 [5] = 10.20, p =.07, GFI =.98). When
the chi-squares of the coping and involuntary models with and without age are
compared, there are no significant differences. The model without age appeared
to be the most parsimonious both for coping and involunary responses, as it
had the smallest chi-squares (coping, 2 = 3.20; involuntary
responses, 2 = 4.43).
Because differences were demonstrated between participants with organic and
functional pain in their responses to stress in the MANOVA, we ran multiple
group analyses using structural equation modeling. We simultaneously estimated
models for children with organic (n = 92) versus functional
(n = 59) abdominal pain for both the coping and involuntary responses
to stress models. These analyses each included two models. Model 1 contained
no equality constraints on the parameter estimates across the two groups being
compared; coping model (2[4] = 10.1); involuntary model
(2[4] = 10.6). Model 2 constrained the paths to be equal
across the two groups; coping model (2[17] = 23.5);
involuntary model (2[12] = 16.1). A chisquare difference test
between models 1 and 2 tested whether the parameter estimates differed for
children with organic versus functional abdominal pain. For the models of both
coping and involuntary responses to stress, there were no significant
differences between models 1 and 2, indicating no differences for children
with organic versus functional abdominal pain in relations between coping
(2[13] = 13.4), and involuntary responses to stress
(2[8] = 5.5), and children's anxiety/depression, somatic
complaints, or pain.
Because the organic and functional groups were equivalent in the multiple
group analyses, we present the results of the single group model using the
full sample (N = 174). Results of the path analyses are presented in
Figures 1 and
2. Both models provide an
adequate fit to the data, with GFI of.994 (coping model) and.990 (involuntary
model). Using the criteria recommended by Bentler and Chou
(1987) and Bollen
(1989) of 10 or more cases per
parameter estimate, we have adequate power to detect moderate effects in both
models. All variables examined were congruent with assumptions of path
modeling, including normality of distribution, linear relations between
variables, and lack of outlier values. In all path analyses, the error terms
of the Anxiety/Depression and Somatic Complaints scales were covaried. As both
the Anxiety/Depression and Somatic Complaints scales were from the same
measure (the CBCL), correlating the error terms served to account for variance
due to informant effects (see Hinden,
Compas, Achenbach, & Howell, 1997). The path between the error
terms was significant in both models (r =.36 for the voluntary coping
model, and r =.37 for the involuntary responses model). In addition,
the RSQ factors were covaried in each model. All covaried paths in both models
were significant, with the exception of the path between secondary control
engagement coping and disengagement coping.
|
|
Parent report of the use of primary control engagement coping was negatively related to the level of anxiety/depression (ß = -.23, p <.01) and somatic symptoms (ß = -.17, p <.05), but was positively related to the amount of pain (ß =.21, p <.01). Secondary control engagement coping was negatively related to the level of anxiety/depression (ß = -.36, p <.01), somatic complaints (ß = -.24, p <.01), and amount of pain (ß = -.21, p <.01). Disengagement coping was positively related only to level of pain (ß =.25, p <.01). The model predicting pain and adjustment from coping accounted for 22% of the variance in anxiety/depression, 9% of the variance in pain, and 11% of the variance in somatic symptoms.
Parent report of involuntary engagement was related to more symptoms of anxiety/depression (ß =.38, p <.01) and somatic symptoms (ß =.21, p <.01), but was unrelated to level of pain. Similarly, involuntary disengagement was positively related to the level of somatic symptoms (ß =.21, p <.01) and anxiety/depression (ß =.15, p <.05), and was unrelated to amount of pain. The model predicting pain and adjustment from involuntary responses accounted for 19% of the variance in anxiety/depression, 2% of the variance in pain, and 10% of the variance in somatic symptoms.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Results highlight important associations among parents' reports of coping, involuntary responses to pain, and levels of pain, somatic symptoms, and anxiety/depression symptoms in children presenting with RAP. In particular, primary and secondary control engagement coping, as hypothesized, were related in both simple correlations and path modeling to lower levels of somatic symptoms and anxiety/depression symptoms. Those children who were reported by their parents as engaging either in strategies to regulate their emotions or their pain, or in strategies aimed at accepting or adapting to their pain, were also reported by their parents to be better adjusted. In addition, secondary control engagement coping was negatively related to level of pain in path analyses and marginally related in simple correlations (p =.07), suggesting that children who use more distraction, acceptance, positive thinking, and cognitive restructuring experienced less pain. In contrast, primary control engagement coping was related to increased levels of pain in path analyses, but was unrelated in simple correlations. The emergence of primary control engagement coping as a predictor of pain in path analyses, where no relation was evident in simple correlations, can be attributed to the effect of cooperative suppression and should be interpreted cautiously (Cohen & Cohen, 1975
).
(Cooperative suppression occurs when two independent variables [disengagement
and primary control engagement coping] correlate positively with the dependent
variable [pain] and negatively with each other [r = -.45, p
<.001]. The correlation between these two variables involves a portion of
the overall variance, which is unrelated to the dependent variable. Thus, when
entered into the same regression equation, the independent variables are
partialled from each other and relations with the dependent variable are
enhanced [Cohen & Cohen,
1975]. In this case, the strong negative relationship between
primary control engagement coping and disengagement coping suggests that more
work should be done examining the relations between the three coping factors
of the RSQ.)
Findings for disengagement coping (e.g., avoidance, denial, wishful
thinking) were less robust. No association was evident with somatic symptoms
or anxiety/depression symptoms in simple correlations. However, in both the
simple correlations and path modeling, disengagement coping was positively
related to level of pain. Similar to findings reported by Walker et al.
(1997), the more avoidance,
denial, and wishful thinking a child used, the more pain he or she
experienced. The findings for disengagement coping may be weaker in these
analyses because the reliability for disengagement coping factor was somewhat
lower than for other scales (
=.53).
Contrary to the hypotheses, neither involuntary engagement nor involuntary
disengagement was related to pain in either simple correlations or in path
analyses. However, both involuntary engagement and disengagement were
positively related to anxiety/depression in simple correlations as well as
path analyses, suggesting that the more involuntary responses observed by
parents, the more symptoms of anxiety and depression a child exhibited. This
finding is consistent with the literature cited earlier that addresses the
positive relation between intrusive thoughts and stress reactivity (including
physiological arousal) with emotional distress (e.g.,
Kagan et al., 1995). Although
some symptoms of anxiety are similar to the items of physiological arousal on
the involuntary engagement scale (e.g., racing heart, sweaty palms), this
association does not appear to be the result of confounded measures, as the
correlation remained significant even after possibly confounded items were
removed. Involuntary engagement and disengagement were also positively related
to somatic symptoms in both simple correlations and path analyses. That is,
the more involuntary responses the parents reported observing, the more likely
they were to report general somatic symptoms in their children. These findings
are consistent with previous research on the association of disengagement
responses and somatic symptoms (Walker et
al., 1997). These findings suggest this association may be due to
involuntary responses in addition to voluntary disengagement coping.
The findings of greatest interest are consistent with the Walker et al.
(1997) study, as they reflect
replication across child and parent reports and different measures. Secondary
control engagement coping strategies, or accommodative coping in Walker et al.
(1997) (e.g., acceptance,
distract/ignore, self-encouragement), were associated with lower levels of
symptoms for children with RAP in both studies. Both studies also found that
disengagement coping strategies or passive coping (e.g., behavioral
disengagement, self-isolation) were related to increased levels of pain. There
were also several differences found between the two studies. This study found
that the increased use of either primary (active) or secondary (accommodative)
control coping was related to decreased levels of anxiety/depression and
somatic symptoms; in contrast, Walker et al.
(1997) found no significant
associations between coping and decreased depressive or somatic symptoms.
Walker et al. (1997) found
that passive (disengagement) coping related to greater somatic complaints and
depression, whereas this study found that involuntary disengagement responses,
but not disengagement coping, related to somatic symptoms.
Although there are differences between the results of these two studies,
taken together they suggest that the coping responses of children with RAP are
associated with emotional as well as somatic and pain symptoms. Furthermore,
it is striking that this convergence was found across the use of parent
reports in this study and child reports in the Walker et al.
(1997) study. Furthermore,
this study used proportional scores of coping and stress responses, whereas
Walker et al. used raw scores. Differences in the findings between these two
studies are likely attributable to the different subscales included on each of
the factors. For example, Walker et al. included "catastrophizing"
on their passive coping factor, a strategy that is closer to "intrusive
thoughts" or "rumination" on the involuntary engagement
scale of the RSQ and not a part of the RSQ disengagement coping scale.
Despite differences in etiological origins of participants' pain, the
models predicting psychological and somatic outcomes from responses to stress
fit for children across the two diagnostic categories. This evidence of
similarity between children with organic and functional pain is consistent
with reports from other researchers who have found that certain psychosocial
factors are related to pediatric pain, regardless of the etiology of pain
(e.g., Walker et al., 1993).
Such evidence provides support for conceptualizations of RAP as neither solely
organic nor functional, but a result of multiple environmental, psychological,
and biological mechanisms (Walker,
1999).
There are several limitations to this study. First, it relies on parents' reports of how their children cope with RAP and does not present the data from the children's reports of their own coping; direct comparison of parent and adolescent reports of coping and symptoms will be important. Second, this study was cross-sectional, and the causal direction of the relations between responses to stress and pain, somatic and anxiety/depression symptoms cannot be determined. For example, children who are more depressed may use more disengagement coping techniques because they do not have the energy, attention, or emotional resources to engage in secondary control techniques. These complex relationships will be more carefully examined in a longitudinal, prospective study.
These limitations notwithstanding, the findings of this study extend the
pediatric literature on adaptation to pain and increase our understanding of
the role of coping in the somatic and emotional functioning of children with
RAP. Specifically, they provide information on potentially adaptive forms of
coping for children with RAP, offering further support for the role of
secondary control coping in positive adaptation to pain and suggesting the
value of primary control strategies including emotional expression and
regulation. In addition, this study expands the scope of research on
children's coping and stress responses to include stress reactivity and other
forms of automatic, involuntary responses to pain. In addition to the
heuristic value of understanding the different ways in which children respond
to stress, the identification of more, as well as less, adaptive responses to
pain and other stress should provide the foundation for interventions to teach
more effective skills in managing, reducing, and controlling pain
(Compas & Boyer, 2001).
Future research examining the effectiveness of interventions aimed at
increasing secondary control engagement strategies and decreasing
disengagement strategies would provide important experimental data to
corroborate the findings of this and other descriptive studies.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This research was suported in part by a grant from the Children's Miracle Network.
Received September 18, 2000; revision received April 24, 2001; accepted July 24, 2001
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont.
Apley, J. (1975). The child with abdominal pain (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos users' guide version 3.6. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation.
Band, E. B., & Weisz, J. R. (1990). Children's
coping with diabetes: Understanding the role of cognitive development.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
15, 27-41.
Battistella, P. A., Carra, S., Zaninotto, M., Ruffilli, R., & Da Dalt, L. (1992). Pupillary reactivity in children with recurrent abdominal pain. Headache, 32, 105-107.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78-117.
Biederman, J., Rosenbaum, J. F., Hirshfeld, D. R., Faraone, S. V.,
Bolduc, E. A., Gersten, M., Meminger, S. R., Kagan, J., Snidman, N., &
Reznick, S. (1990). Psychiatric correlates of behavioral
inhibition in young children with and without psychiatric disorders.
Archives of General Psychiatry,
47, 21-26.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Boyce, T., Chesney, M., Alkon, A., Tschann, J. M., Adams, S.,
Chesterman, B., Cohen, F., Kaiser, P., Folkman, S., & Wara, D.
(1995). Psychobiologic reactivity to stress and childhood
respiratory illness. Psychosomatic Medicine,
57, 411-422.
Boyer, M. C., Compas, B. E., Stanger, C., Colletti, R. B., Thomsen, A. H., Konik, B. S., & Morrow, S. B. (2001). Coping with recurrent abdominal pain: Latent variable analyses of parent and child reports. Unpublished manuscript, University of Vermont.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.[Web of Science][Medline]
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Colletti, R. B. (1998). Recurrent abdominal pain. In F. D. Burg, J. R. Ingelfinger, E. R. Wald, & R. A. Polin (Eds), Current pediatric therapy. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Compas, B. E., & Boyer, M. C. (2001). Coping and attention: Implications for children's health and pediatric conditions. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 22, 1-11.[Web of Science][Medline]
Compas, B. E., Connor, J. K., Osowiecki, D. M., & Welch, A. (1997). Effortful and involuntary responses to stress: Implications for coping with chronic stress. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress. New York: Plenum.
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Progress, problems, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87-127.[Web of Science][Medline]
Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Thomsen, A. H., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976-992.[Web of Science][Medline]
Feuerstein, M., Barr, R. G., Francoeur, T. E., Houle, M., & Rafman, S. (1982). Potential biobehavioral mechanisms of recurrent abdominal pain in children. Pain, 13, 287-298.[Web of Science][Medline]
Garber, J., Walker, L. S., & Zeman, J. (1991). Somatization symptoms in a community sample of children and adolescents: Further validation of the Children's Somatization Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 3, 588-595.
Garber, J., Zeman, J., & Walker, L. S. (1990). Recurrent abdominal pain in children: Psychiatric diagnoses and parental psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 648-656.[Web of Science][Medline]
Gil, K. M., Williams, D. A., Thompson, R. J., & Kinney, T. R.
(1991). Sickle cell disease in children and adolescents: The
relation of child and parent pain coping strategies to adjustment.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
16, 643-663.
Hinden, B., Compas, B. E., Achenbach, T., & Howell, D. (1997). Covariation of the anxious-depressed syndrome during adolescence: Separating fact from artifact. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 6-14.[Web of Science][Medline]
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished paper, Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven, CT.
Holmbeck, G. N., Belvedere, M. C., Christensen, M., Czerwinski, A. M., Hommeyer, J. S., Johnson, S. Z., & Kung, E. (1998). Assessment of adherence with multiple informants in pre-adolescents with spina bifida: Initial development of a multidimensional, multitask parent-report questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 427-440.[Web of Science][Medline]
Kagan, J., Snidman, N., & Arcus, D. (1995). The role of temperament in social development. In G. P. Chrousos et al. (Eds.), Stress: Basic mechanisms and clinical implications (pp. 485-490). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 771.
Kovacs, M. (1980/1981). Rating scales to assess depression in school aged children. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 46, 305-315.[Web of Science]
Osowiecki, D. M., & Compas, B. E. (1999). Psychological adjustment to cancer: Control beliefs and coping in adult cancer patients. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 483-499.[Web of Science]
Rubin, L. S., Barbero, G. J., & Sibinga, M. S. (1967). Pupillary reactivity in children with recurrent abdominal pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 2, 111-120.
Schanberg, L. E., Lefebvre, J. C., Keefe, F. J., Kredich, D. W., & Gil, K. M. (1997). Pain coping and the pain experience in children with juvenile chronic arthritis. Pain, 73, 181-189.[Web of Science][Medline]
Tobin, D. L., Holroyd, K. A., Reynolds, R. V., & Wigal, J. K. (1989). The hierarchical factor structure of the Coping Strategies Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 343-361.[Web of Science]
Vitaliano, P. P., Maiuro, R. D., Russo, J., & Becker, J. (1987). Raw versus relative scores in the assessment of coping strategies. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 1-18.[Web of Science][Medline]
Wadsworth, M. E., & Compas, B. E. (in press). Coping with family conflict and economic strain: The adolescent perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence.
Walker, L. S. (1999). The evolution of research on recurrent abdominal pain: History, assumptions, and a conceptual model. In P. J. McGrath & G. A. Finley (Eds), Chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. Progress in Pain Research and Management (vol. 13, pp. 141-172). Seattle, WA: IASP Press.
Walker, L. S., Garber, J., & Greene, J. W. (1993). Psychosocial correlates of recurrent childhood pain: A comparison of pediatric patients with recurrent abdominal pain, organic illness, and psychiatric disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 248-258.[Web of Science][Medline]
Walker, L. S., & Greene, J. W. (1989). Children
with recurrent abdominal pain and their parents: More somatic complaints,
anxiety, and depression than other patient families? Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 14,
231-243.
Walker, L. S., Smith, C. A., Garber, J., & Van Slyke, D. A. (1997). Development and validation of the Pain Response Inventory for children. Psychological Assessment, 9, 392-405.[Web of Science]
Weisz, J. R., McCabe, M. A., & Dennig, M. D. (1994). Primary and secondary control among children undergoing medical procedures: Adjustment as a function of coping style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 324-332.[Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. J. Kaczynski, R. L. Claar, and D. E. Logan Testing Gender as a Moderator of Associations Between Psychosocial Variables and Functional Disability in Children and Adolescents with Chronic Pain J. Pediatr. Psychol., August 1, 2009; 34(7): 738 - 748. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. K. Campbell, M. Scaduto, D. Van Slyke, F. Niarhos, J. A. Whitlock, and B. E. Compas Executive Function, Coping, and Behavior in Survivors of Childhood Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia J. Pediatr. Psychol., April 1, 2009; 34(3): 317 - 327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. E. Simons, R. L. Claar, and D. L. Logan Chronic Pain in Adolescence: Parental Responses, Adolescent Coping, and their Impact on Adolescent's Pain Behaviors J. Pediatr. Psychol., September 1, 2008; 33(8): 894 - 904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Beck A Developmental Perspective on Functional Somatic Symptoms J. Pediatr. Psychol., June 1, 2008; 33(5): 547 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Greco, K. E. Freeman, and L. Dufton Overt and Relational Victimization Among Children with Frequent Abdominal Pain: Links to Social Skills, Academic Functioning, and Health Service Use J. Pediatr. Psychol., April 1, 2007; 32(3): 319 - 329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. S. Walker, C. A. Smith, J. Garber, and R. L. Claar Appraisal and Coping with Daily Stressors by Pediatric Patients with Chronic Abdominal Pain J. Pediatr. Psychol., March 1, 2007; 32(2): 206 - 216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Kaminsky, M. Robertson, and D. Dewey Psychological Correlates of Depression in Children with Recurrent Abdominal Pain J. Pediatr. Psychol., October 1, 2006; 31(9): 956 - 966. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. A. Lipani and L. S. Walker Children's Appraisal and Coping with Pain: Relation to Maternal Ratings of Worry and Restriction in Family Activities J. Pediatr. Psychol., August 1, 2006; 31(7): 667 - 673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. C. Boyer, B. E. Compas, C. Stanger, R. B. Colletti, B. S. Konik, S. B. Morrow, and A. H. Thomsen Attentional Biases to Pain and Social Threat in Children with Recurrent Abdominal Pain J. Pediatr. Psychol., March 1, 2006; 31(2): 209 - 220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||