The Brief-COPE is a 28 item self-report questionnaire designed to measure effective and ineffective ways to cope with a stressful life event. “Coping” is defined broadly as an effort used to minimise distress associated with negative life experiences.
Developed by Carver (1997) as an abbreviated version of the original 60-item COPE Inventory (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989), the Brief-COPE has become one of the most widely used and validated measures of coping strategies in psychological research and clinical practice.
Brief-COPE Example Item
The theoretical foundation of the Brief-COPE draws from multiple models of coping, including Lazarus and Folkman’s (1985) stress and coping theory, behavioural self-regulation models, and empirical research on successful and unsuccessful coping responses. “Coping” is defined broadly as any effort used to minimise distress associated with negative life experiences, encompassing both cognitive and behavioural strategies.
The scale can determine a respondent’s primary coping styles with scores on three overarching subscales:
In addition to the three overarching subscales, the Brief-COPE reports scores for 14 individual facets (each comprising two items): Self-distraction, Denial, Substance Use, Behavioural Disengagement, Emotional Support, Venting, Humour, Acceptance, Self-Blame, Religion, Active Coping, Use of Instrumental Support, Positive Reframing, and Planning.
The Brief-COPE is commonly used in healthcare settings to ascertain how patients are emotionally responding to serious circumstances. It can measure coping responses to a wide range of adversity, including cancer diagnosis, heart failure, injuries, assaults, natural disasters, financial stress, or mental illness. The scale is useful in counselling settings for formulating the helpful and unhelpful ways someone responds to stressors, and can inform treatment planning by identifying specific coping patterns to target in therapy.
Scores are presented as average scores (sum of item scores divided by number of items) for each of the three overarching coping styles, indicating the degree to which the respondent has been engaging in that coping style.
The three subscales comprise the following items:
Two percentile comparisons are provided for each subscale. A normative percentile is presented based on data from a non-clinical sample of athletes (Poulus et al., 2020), helping to contextualise results in comparison to typical responses from non-clinical individuals. Additionally, a clinical percentile is presented which compares responses to clients receiving outpatient mental health services (Hegarty & Buchanan, 2021). A percentile of 50 represents an average score, whereas a percentile of 90 indicates the respondent scored higher than 90 percent of individuals in the reference group.
During interpretation, it can be helpful to examine the pattern of responding across the three subscales. Consistently low scores on all subscales may indicate: (1) the respondent does not feel they have many stressors to cope with; (2) a lack of reflective capacity or resistance to disclose personal information; or (3) the respondent does not have many active coping skills.
Individual examination of the 14 facets and their constituent items can pinpoint specific adaptive or maladaptive coping strategies and be useful for eliciting discussion with the respondent. Facet-level scores are also presented to allow for more granular insights.
On first administration, three horizontal bar graphs are presented showing each of the three subscales with their corresponding clinical percentile rankings.
On multiple administrations, a line graph tracks these three subscales’ clinical percentiles over time, indicating the degree to which coping strategies have changed throughout treatment.
The Brief-COPE demonstrates strong construct validity as a measure of coping strategies. Convergent validity is supported by significant correlations with related constructs. Problem-focused and approach coping strategies show moderate negative relationships with perceived stress and positive associations with life satisfaction (García et al., 2020). Avoidant coping styles have been consistently linked to adverse outcomes including higher perceived stress, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress symptoms across numerous studies (Litman, 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2012; Holahan et al., 2005). Discriminant validity has been established through the scale’s ability to distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive coping patterns across clinical and non-clinical populations.
Internal consistency of the Brief-COPE varies across the 14 individual facets. A comprehensive review by Rodrigues and colleagues (2022) found that the correlated 14-factor structure demonstrates good psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging from acceptable to excellent across subscales (α = .65 to .90), with Substance Use consistently showing the highest internal consistency. The three higher-order factors (Problem-Focused, Emotion-Focused, and Avoidant Coping) show acceptable to good internal consistency (α = .77 to .88) across validation studies. Test-retest reliability has been demonstrated with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from .32 to 1.00 across individual subscales over 7-8 week intervals, with the most stable subscales being Acceptance, Denial, Venting, and Behavioural Disengagement (Yusoff et al., 2010).
Regarding dimensionality, the factor structure of the Brief-COPE has been extensively examined with varying results. The original 14-factor structure (Carver, 1997) has received support across multiple populations and has been confirmed in confirmatory factor analyses in Chilean (García et al., 2020), Portuguese (Nunes et al., 2021), and other international samples. Alternative higher-order structures have been proposed, including a two-factor model distinguishing Avoidant and Approach Coping (Eisenberg et al., 2012) and the three-factor model distinguishing Problem-Focused, Emotion-Focused, and Avoidant Coping (Dias et al., 2012). The three-factor higher-order model provides practical clinical utility and is employed for scoring purposes within NovoPsych, though recent comprehensive reviews note that second-order and bifactor model specifications often display poor fit (Rodrigues et al., 2022).
Normative data have been established from multiple samples. Poulus and colleagues (2020) validated the scale among 316 esports athletes and found the following means and standard deviations for each subscale: Problem-Focused (M = 2.47, SD = 0.63), Emotion-Focused (M = 2.23, SD = 0.49), and Avoidant Coping (M = 1.64, SD = 0.45). This non-clinical sample data is used to compute normative percentile ranks. Additionally, NovoPsych compiled responses from patients receiving psychological intervention in outpatient settings (N = 3,635) to produce clinical normative data (Hegarty & Buchanan, 2021). Both normative samples are used to provide context for interpreting individual scores.
Yes, coping strategies are learned responses that can shift with therapeutic intervention and life experience. When administered repeatedly, the Brief-COPE can track changes in coping patterns over time, helping clinicians evaluate whether treatment is having the desired effect. For instance, effective therapy might show a reduction in avoidant strategies (such as denial or behavioural disengagement) alongside an increase in problem-focused or adaptive emotion-focused approaches. However, it’s worth noting that the “best” coping profile depends on context – some situations may call for acceptance rather than active problem-solving.
The Brief-COPE is particularly useful during initial assessment when formulating how a client responds to stress, and can inform treatment goals around building adaptive coping skills. It is well-suited for clients presenting with adjustment difficulties, chronic health conditions, trauma, grief, or any situation involving significant life stressors. The scale can also be valuable at key treatment milestones or discharge to evaluate whether coping patterns have shifted. Because the Brief-COPE asks about coping with “a hardship in your life,” clinicians may wish to clarify with the client which stressor they are responding about, particularly if multiple significant stressors are present.
Research consistently shows that avoidant coping strategies – including denial, substance use, behavioural disengagement, and self-blame – are associated with poorer mental health outcomes and greater psychological distress. Avoidant coping can maintain anxiety and depression by preventing individuals from processing difficult emotions or addressing the source of their stress. This creates a cycle where short-term relief (such as distraction or numbing through substances) leads to longer-term difficulties as problems remain unresolved and emotional processing is delayed. However, context matters: temporary avoidance can be adaptive when a situation is genuinely uncontrollable, and the Brief-COPE helps clinicians identify whether avoidant or emotional patterns are situationally appropriate or represent a broader maladaptive style.
Low emotion-focused coping is neither inherently good nor bad, interpretation depends on examining the facet-level and item-level responses. The subscale comprises several distinct facets such as emotional support, venting, self-blame, humour, acceptance, and religion. These facets vary considerably in their associations with psychological wellbeing. For example, high self-blame is generally maladaptive and associated with poorer mental health outcomes, whereas high acceptance or high emotional support seeking may indicate strengths in emotional processing or social connection. A client with a low overall emotion-focused score driven by minimal self-blame and limited venting presents very differently from one whose low score reflects an inability to seek comfort from others or accept difficult realities. Clinicians should examine the facet and item level when interpreting this subscale, as the aggregated score can obscure clinically important patterns.
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol is too long: Consider the brief cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92-100.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Días, C., Cruz, J., & Fonseca, A. (2012). The relationship between multidimensional competitive anxiety, cognitive threat appraisal, and coping strategies: A multi-sport study. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.645131
Eisenberg, S. A., Shen, B. J., Schwarz, E. R., & Mallon, S. (2012). Avoidant coping moderates the association between anxiety and patient-rated physical functioning in heart failure patients. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35(3), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-011-9358-0
García, F. E., Barraza-Peña, C. G., Wlodarczyk, A., Alvear-Carrasco, M., & Reyes-Reyes, A. (2020). Psychometric properties of the Brief-COPE for the evaluation of coping strategies in the Chilean population. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 31, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-018-0102-3
Hegarty, D., & Buchanan, B. (2021, June 25). The Value of NovoPsych Data – New Norms for the Brief-COPE. NovoPsych. https://novopsych.com/news/the-value-of-novopsych-data-new-norms-for-the-brief-cope/
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., Brennan, P. L., & Schutte, K. K. (2005). Stress generation, avoidance coping, and depressive symptoms: A 10-year model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(4), 658-666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.73.4.658
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1985). Stress and coping. New York, 18(31), 34-42.
Litman, J. A. (2006). The COPE inventory: Dimensionality and relationships with approach-and avoidance-motives and positive and negative traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(2), 273-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.032
Poulus, D., Coulter, T. J., Trotter, M. G., & Polman, R. (2020). Stress and Coping in Esports and the Influence of Mental Toughness. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 628. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00628
Rodrigues, F., Figueiredo, N., Rodrigues, J., Ferreira, R., Hernández-Mendo, A., & Monteiro, D. (2022). A Comprehensive Review and Bifactor Modeling Analysis of the Brief COPE. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 59, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580221108127
Nunes, C., Pérez-Padilla, J., Martins, C., Pechorro, P., Ayala-Nunes, L., & Ferreira, L. I. (2021). The Brief COPE: Measurement Invariance and Psychometric Properties among Community and At-Risk Portuguese Parents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062806
Yusoff, N., Low, W. Y., & Yip, C. H. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Brief COPE Scale (English version) among women with breast cancer undergoing treatment of adjuvant chemotherapy: A Malaysian study. The Medical Journal of Malaysia, 65(1), 41–44.
