Cited by 200Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The dialectical behavior therapy ways of coping checklist: development and psychometric properties

Neacsiu, Andrada D., Rizvi, Shireen L., Vitaliano, Peter P., Lynch, Thomas R., Linehan, Marsha M.·2010·Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Skills training is a crucial mode of treatment in dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1993b), yet a psychometrically sound measure of DBT skills use does not exist. We adapted the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist (RWCCL; Vitaliano, Russo, Carr, Maiuro, & Becker, 1985) to create the DBT Ways of Coping Checklist (DBT‐WCCL). Using factor analysis procedures, two subscales emerged: one assessing coping via DBT skills, the DBT Skills Subscale (DSS), and one assessing coping via dysfunctional means, the Dysfunctional Coping Subscale (DCS). Principal component, internal consistency, test‐retest reliability, and content validity analyses suggested that the scale has good to excellent psychometric properties. In addition, the DSS successfully discriminated patients who received skills training during 4 months of treatment from patients who did not. Moderators of skills use are also discussed. The DBT‐WCCL appears to be a promising new measure of DBT skills use. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol: 66:1–20, 2010.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jclp.20685

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The DBT-WCCL skills subscale has demonstrated adequate to excellent reliability and validity, including the ability to discriminate between treatment conditions that provide DBT skills and those that do not.

    “The measure has demonstrated adequate to excellent reliability and validity, including the ability to discriminate from treatment conditions providing DBT skills versus those that do not (Neacsiu, Rizvi, & Linehan, 2010; Neacsiu, Rizvi, Vitaliano, Lynch, & Linehan, 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neacsiu, A. D., Rizvi, S. L., Vitaliano, P. P., Lynch, T. R., & Linehan, M. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Neacsiu, Andrada D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-04-06
Volume
66
Issue
6
Pages
563-582
ISSN
  • 0021-9762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4679
OpenAlex
W2110988035
Cited by
200
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
dialectical behavior therapy, DBT skills training, coping, psychometric properties, scale development, dysfunctional coping, medication adherence
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Behavior Therapy, Borderline Personality Disorder, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Cohort Studies, Young Adult, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review