Page 28 - IJSA, Vol. 6, No 2, 2023

International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2023
рrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa

Students in all groups used engagement (E) coping the ineffectiveness of coping with stress through
strategies more often (34.5 points, 35.3 points, and engagement strategies among students in this group.
36.7 points for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). At the The mean, standard error, standard deviation, and
same time, the gap in the use of disengagement (D) median of the total scores obtained on the subscales of
coping strategies is the smallest in Group 3, indicating the CSI technique are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for the Secondary and the Tertiary Subscales of the CSI and Internal Consistency Reliability

Items of N Mean Standard Median Standard Range Internal consistency
subscale error of mean deviation reliability
PFE 323 17.73 0.305 18.00 5.48 23 0.795
PFD 323 16.46 0.284 16.00 5.11 22 0.739
EFE 323 17.86 0.320 18.00 5.75 20 0.844
EFD 323 15.31 0.269 14.00 4.83 18 0.672
E 323 35.59 0.545 36.00 9.80 39 0.820
D 323 31.77 0.477 30.00 8.57 34 0.706
Note. PFE – Problem-Focused Engagement, PFD – Problem-Focused Disengagement, EFE – Emotion-Focused
Engagement, EFD – Emotion-Focused Disengagement, E – Engagement, D – Disengagement.

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were computed for each Emotion-Focused Disengagement, and 0.820 and 0.706
of the secondary and the tertiary subscales of the CSI to for the tertiary subscale, Engagement and
estimate internal consistency reliability (Table 5). Disengagement respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for the
Acceptable internal consistency was seen for all total scale was 0.759. These scores indicate the
subscales. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from homogeneity of the items in each subscale.
0.672 to 0.844 for the secondary subscale, which are To assess the associations between the secondary and
Problem-Focused Engagement, Problem-Focused tertiary subscales, the Pearson correlation coefficient
Disengagement, Emotion-Focused Engagement, and was calculated (Table 6).

Table 6
Pearson Correlations for the Secondary and the Tertiary Subscales of the CSI
Items of subscale PFE EFE PFD EFD E D
**
**
Pearson Correlation 1.000 0.522 -0.372 ** -0.327 ** 0.865 -0.406 **
PFE Sig. (2-tailed) - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
N 323 323 323 323 323 323
Pearson Correlation 0.522 1.000 -0.076 -0.161 ** 0.879 -0.136 *
**
**
EFE Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 - 0.173 0.004 <0.001 0.014
N 323 323 323 323 323 323
Pearson Correlation -0.372 ** -0.076 1 0.486 -0.252 ** 0.870
**
**
PFD Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 0.173 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
N 323 323 323 323 323 323
Pearson Correlation -0.327 ** -0.161 ** 0.486 1.000 -0.277 ** 0.854
**
**
EFD Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 0.004 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001
N 323 323 323 323 323 323
Pearson Correlation 0.865 0.879 -0.252 ** -0.277 ** 1.000 -0.307 **
**
**
E Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001
N 323 323 323 323 323 323
**
**
Pearson Correlation -0.406 ** -0.136 * 0.870 0.854 -0.307 ** 1.000
D Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 0.014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -
N 323 323 323 323 323 323
Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); PFE
– Problem-Focused Engagement, PFD – Problem-Focused Disengagement, EFE – Emotion-Focused Engagement, EFD
– Emotion-Focused Disengagement, E – Engagement, D – Disengagement.

Discussion martial law, and full-scale war in Ukraine, which has
This research is part of a comprehensive study of mental been ongoing since 2014.
health in the extreme conditions of low-intensity war, Previous studies (Melnyk et al., 2019) have examined the

26