Exploring the Structure of Coping and Relationship to Depression Among Homeless Youth

Background: Homeless youth face myriad stressors while living on the streets. The methods by which they cope with stress may influence their risk of developing mental health problems, such as depression. Although coping styles have been examined among youth in the general population, there is reason to believe that coping strategies might differ among homeless youth, as they lack many traditional supports and resources. Previous qualitative research, used to develop the Coping Scale (Kidd & Carroll, 2007), made great strides toward capturing unique coping strategies common among homeless youth, but the psychometrics of this instrument have not been well-tested. With the goal of developing a sound instrument to effectively investigate coping styles among homeless youth, this study aimed to: 1) explore the factor structure of the Coping Scale, 2) describe the coping styles most commonly utilized in a sample of homeless youth, and 3) explore the relationship between identified coping styles and depression.

Methods: Quantitative data were collected from a sample of 201 homeless youth, aged 18-24, recruited from homeless youth-serving agencies. Youth completed interviews that examined demographic and homelessness background information, coping, and major depressive episode. Coping styles were examined using Kidd and Carroll’s (2007) 14-item Coping Scale that is comprised of four dimensions of coping: problem-focused, avoidant, social, and “other ways of coping.” The Coping Scale integrates themes from qualitative coping interviews with homeless youth and existing standardized coping items, but has not been psychometrically tested. Major depressive episode was assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatry Interview. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the Coping Scale using principal components analysis. Scree test and factor eigenvalues determined the number of factors to retain. Descriptive statistics characterized, on average, how often each coping style was endorsed by the sample. A hierarchical logistic regression model examined how coping factors were associated with major depressive episode, controlling for demographic and homelessness background variables. 

Results: Results of the EFA indicated an 11-item, 3-factor structure of coping, including active (eigenvalue=3.20), avoidant (eigenvalue=1.55), and social (eigenvalue=1.21) coping styles, best fit the data. Active coping, an emerging coping style that combines problem-focused coping with other active coping items (e.g., “Do a hobby”), was most widely-endorsed (M=3.82, SD=.73), followed by social (M=3.41, SD=1.29), and avoidant coping (M=2.74, SD=.98). Accounting for demographic and homelessness background variables, youth who utilized greater avoidant coping were at increased risk of meeting criteria for major depressive disorder (OR=2.09, p<.001).

Conclusion: By establishing initial psychometric properties of the Coping Scale, findings indicate the utility of a preliminary tool for assessing homeless youths’ coping styles. Although the revised Coping Scale resulted in similar factors to that of the original instrument, this new factor structure may be more useful in research and practice, as it dismantles the rather vague “other ways of coping” category and helps identify distinct coping styles with more practical implications for intervention. That this instrument predicted depression suggests it may hold promise for identifying malleable coping strategies that can be targeted in treatment and prevention services for homeless youth.