"Dear Researchers,
In the context of the Brief COPE Inventory (B-COPE), which comprises 14 scales (each with two items) with responses ranging from 1 (“I haven't done this at all”) to 4 (“I have done this a lot”), I noticed that for statistical analysis, the questionnaire is often divided into adaptive and maladaptive coping subscales. The adaptive coping subscale is derived from a cumulative score of 8 scales, while the maladaptive coping subscale is based on the remaining 6 scales.
My question pertains to the methodological implications of this division: How do you ensure a fair and balanced comparison between adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies when they are based on an unequal number of scales? Specifically, I am interested in understanding the statistical rationale behind this approach and how it might influence the interpretation of a participant's coping strategies as more adaptive or maladaptive. Additionally, are there any considerations or adjustments made during the analysis to account for the discrepancy in the number of scales between these two subscales?
Thank you
You can either standardize the variables before your analysis (mean of zero and std. dev. of 1), or if they are independent variables in a regression, you can use the standardized coefficients.