Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,013

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Brief RCOPE: Current Psychometric Status of a Short Measure of Religious Coping

Open access
Pargament, Kenneth, Feuille, Margaret, Burdzy, Donna·2011·Religions
DOI 10.3390/rel2010051
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Brief RCOPE is a 14-item measure of religious coping with major life stressors. As the most commonly used measure of religious coping in the literature, it has helped contribute to the growth of knowledge about the roles religion serves in the process of dealing with crisis, trauma, and transition. This paper reports on the development of the Brief RCOPE and its psychometric status. The scale developed out of Pargament’s (1997) program of theory and research on religious coping. The items themselves were generated through interviews with people experiencing major life stressors. Two overarching forms of religious coping, positive and negative, were articulated through factor analysis of the full RCOPE. Positive religious coping methods reflect a secure relationship with a transcendent force, a sense of spiritual connectedness with others, and a benevolent world view. Negative religious coping methods reflect underlying spiritual tensions and struggles within oneself, with others, and with the divine. Empirical studies document the internal consistency of the positive and negative subscales of the Brief RCOPE. Moreover, empirical studies provide support for the construct validity, predictive validity, and incremental validity of the subscales. The Negative Religious Coping subscale, in particular, has emerged as a robust predictor of health-related outcomes. Initial evidence suggests that the Brief RCOPE may be useful as an evaluative tool that is sensitive to the effects of psychological interventions. In short, the Brief RCOPE has demonstrated its utility as an instrument for research and practice in the psychology of religion and spirituality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/rel2010051

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Greil, 1989, Why me? Theodicies of infertile women and men, Sociol. Health Illness, 11, 213
  2. Segall, 1988–1989, The black family's experience with dementia, J. Appl. Soc. Sci., 13, 170
  3. Folkman, S. (2010). Oxford Handbook of Stress and Coping, Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Paloutzian, R., and Park, C. (2005). Handbook of Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Guilford Press.

Cited by

See all 1,013

Metadata

Authors
Pargament, K., Feuille, M., & Burdzy, D.
Venue
Religions
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2011-02-22
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
51-76
ISSN
2077-1444 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/rel2010051
OpenAlex
W2104737216
Cited by
1,013
References
59
FWCI
18.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (vor)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Brief RCOPE: Current Psychometric Status of a Short Measure of Religious Coping. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/rel2010051
The paper
Pargament, K., Feuille, M., & Burdzy, D. (2011). The Brief RCOPE: Current Psychometric Status of a Short Measure of Religious Coping. Religions. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel2010051

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.