Brief Description

The Strategic Approach to Coping Scale (SACS-52) is a 52-item self-report instrument designed to assess the strategies individuals typically use when dealing with stressful, demanding, or conflict-related situations. Respondents indicate the extent to which they usually employ specific coping strategies when facing difficult or pressuring circumstances.

The scale is based on a multidimensional model of coping and includes nine distinct coping strategies: assertive action, aggressive action, passive action, submissive action, avoidance, control, social joining, instinctive action, and positive reappraisal.

This multidimensional structure allows the instrument to provide a broader coping profile, since individuals may rely on different strategies depending on the type of stressor, the resources available to them, and their perceived level of control over the situation.

Aim

The primary aim of the SACS-52 is to assess the strategies individuals use to cope with difficult situations, particularly situations involving high levels of stress, pressure, or interpersonal conflict. The instrument examines both the type of strategy activated and its potential contribution to the individual’s effectiveness of adaptation.

The scale can therefore help identify whether individuals tend to approach stressful situations actively, seek social support, avoid difficulties, or respond in more impulsive, aggressive, passive, or submissive ways.

Dimensions of the Scale

The theoretical structure of the SACS-52 includes nine coping strategies:

Assertive Action: an active and confident approach to dealing with demands and difficulties.

Aggressive Action: coping through more confrontational or aggressive responses.

Passive Action: a tendency to respond to difficulties with reduced active involvement.

Submissive Action: a tendency to yield or accommodate the demands of others.

Avoidance: withdrawing from or attempting to evade the stressful situation.

Control: efforts to manage and exert control over the demands or circumstances.

Social Joining: using interpersonal relationships and social resources when coping with difficulties.

Instinctive Action: reacting rapidly or impulsively to stressful circumstances.

Positive Reappraisal: attempting to reinterpret a difficult experience in a more positive or constructive way.

Scoring

Scoring is performed separately for each of the nine subscales by summing the responses to the corresponding items. For example, Assertive Action (SACS1) includes items 1, 10, 15, 25, 26, 30, 50, 51, and 52, whereas Aggressive Action (SACS2) includes items 3, 8, 9, 14, 20, and 33.

Some items require reverse scoring, including items 7, 23, 24, 30, and 41 in the relevant subscales. Therefore, data processing should follow the scoring procedure specified for the instrument.

Higher scores on a particular subscale indicate a greater tendency to use the corresponding coping strategy. They should not automatically be interpreted as indicating either more effective or more maladaptive coping overall.

Validity

Correlations with other psychological variables and characteristics support the construct validity of the SACS-52 subscales. According to the available material, the scale successfully differentiates between distinct coping dimensions, with the individual strategies being associated with different patterns of behavior and response to stressful stimuli.

Reliability

Internal consistency for the nine subscales, assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, ranges from 0.59 to 0.88. These values indicate moderate to high internal consistency for most of the subscales. The psychometric evaluation reported in the available material was based on a representative Greek adult sample.

Data Analysis and Applications

Data obtained from the SACS-52 may be analyzed using descriptive statistics and factor analysis in order to examine the internal structure of the instrument or identify associations between coping strategies and demographic or psychological characteristics.

The scale may be used in both research and clinical settings to assess coping patterns, support psychotherapeutic interventions, and compare coping strategies across different population groups.

References

Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., & Monnier, J. (1993). Preliminary Test Manual: Strategic Approach to Coping. Unpublished test manual, Kent State University.

Roussi, P., & Vassilaki, E. (2001). The applicability of the Multiaxial Model of Coping to the Greek population. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 14, 125–148.