Utrecht Coping List

Abstract

The Utrecht Coping List (Utrechtse Coping Lijst; UCL) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument developed by psychometricians and clinical researchers at Utrecht University (Schreurs et al., 1988, 1993) to assess dispositional cognitive and behavioral coping strategies in response to taxing life events, somatic illnesses, and everyday stressors. Comprising 47 self-report items evaluated on a 4-point Likert-type frequency scale ranging from 1 (zelden of nooit [seldom or never]) to 4 (zeer vaak [very often]), the instrument delineates coping into seven distinct, intercorrelated dimensions: Active Problem Solving (Actief aanpakken; 7 items), Palliative Reaction (Palliatieve reactie; 8 items), Avoidance/Waiting (Vermijden / Afwachten; 8 items), Seeking Social Support (Sociale steun zoeken; 6 items), Passive Reaction Pattern (Passief reactiepatroon; 7 items), Expression of Emotions (Expressie van emoties; 3 items), and Reassuring Thoughts (Geruststellende gedachten; 8 items). Psychometric investigations across diverse normative, clinical, and occupational populations demonstrate moderate to high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically spanning .65 to .88 across subscales) and satisfactory test-retest stability across multiple longitudinal intervals. Construct, convergent, and criterion validities have been substantiated through robust associations with indicators of psychopathology (such as depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety, and burn-out syndrome), somatic health parameters, and established personality frameworks including the Five-Factor Model. Extensively employed across Dutch-speaking healthcare systems, psychological rehabilitation centers, occupational health contexts, and empirical behavioral research, the UCL remains a benchmark assessment for evaluating how individuals cognitively interpret and behavioral act upon adversity.

Keywords

Utrecht Coping List, Utrechtse Coping Lijst, UCL, coping strategies, psychological stress, active problem solving, passive coping, palliative reaction, psychometrics, transactional stress theory, emotional expression, avoidance behavior

Authors

The Utrecht Coping List was developed and standardized by an academic research team at Utrecht University (Universiteit Utrecht) in the Netherlands:

• P. J. G. Schreurs, Ph.D. — Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University; leading investigator on transactional coping methodologies and primary author of the UCL technical manuals.
• G. van de Willige, Ph.D. — Psychometrician and researcher specializing in psychological assessment, stress regulation, and healthcare evaluation protocols.
• B. Tellegen, Ph.D. — Quantitative methodologist and statistician contributing to the structural equation modeling and exploratory factor analysis of the instrument.
• Jos F. Brosschot, Ph.D. — Currently Professor of Health Psychology at Leiden University; renowned for foundational research into perseverative cognition, somatic health markers, physiological stress responses, and cognitive-behavioral coping.
• G. M. H. Graus, M.Sc. — Clinical research associate involved in field validation studies within Dutch inpatient and outpatient psychological treatment centers.

Purpose

The primary objective of the Utrecht Coping List is to systematically identify, categorize, and quantify an individual’s habitual, dispositional coping repertoire when confronted with adversity, interpersonal strain, somatic illness, or cognitive dissonance. Grounded in the premise that coping forms a central mediating mechanism between environmental stressors and psychological or physical health outcomes, the UCL provides clinicians, organizational consultants, and health psychologists with an empirically derived profile of an examinee’s adaptive and maladaptive coping tendencies.

In clinical and medical psychology, the UCL is frequently administered during diagnostic intakes to assess vulnerability to chronic stress, affective disorders, functional somatic syndromes, and prolonged adjustment problems. For instance, high scores on the Passive Reaction Pattern scale (characterized by depressive brooding, resignation, and withdrawal) combined with depressed scores on Active Problem Solving consistently predict poor treatment prognosis, treatment non-adherence, and an elevated vulnerability to major depressive episodes or chronic fatigue. Conversely, identifying an individual’s reliance on Palliative Reactions or Reassuring Thoughts assists therapists in calibrating cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBT), acceptance and commitment interventions, or problem-solving skills training to bolster cognitive reframing and behavioral activation.

Within occupational health psychology and organizational consulting, the UCL serves as a diagnostic screening and coaching instrument. It evaluates employee resilience, burnout risks, and executive management under acute and chronic work stressors. By assessing specific response patterns—such as the excessive suppression or uncontrolled behavioral venting of anger (Expression of Emotions) versus systematic goal-oriented restructuring (Active Problem Solving)—practitioners can tailor workplace interventions, occupational stress reduction seminars, and individual employee assistance programs (EAPs). In longitudinal behavioral research, the instrument offers an operationalized assessment of how stable coping traits interact with fluctuating environmental demands over time.

Psychological Construct

Coping, conceptualized within the framework of the UCL, represents a multidimensional constellation of behavioral, cognitive, and affective strategies employed by an individual to master, tolerate, mitigate, or minimize internal and external demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding personal resources. Rather than viewing coping as a strictly bipolar construct (such as solely problem-focused versus emotion-focused), the UCL conceptualizes coping along seven distinct yet interactive dimensions:

1. Active Problem Solving (Actief aanpakken)

Comprising 7 items, this subscale measures a deliberate, purposeful, and systematic orientation toward confronting stressors directly. It captures analytical behavioral actions such as examining a problem from every angle, developing step-by-step plans, remaining calm, and mobilizing focused effort to solve difficulties. Individuals scoring high on this dimension display high internal locus of control and self-efficacy, actively seeking tangible strategies to resolve the underlying stressors rather than merely alleviating transient emotional discomfort.

2. Palliative Reaction (Palliatieve reactie)

Containing 8 items, this factor evaluates self-regulatory attempts to dampen physiological arousal and distract attention away from the problem through engaging in alternative activities, seeking relaxation, or relying on oral self-soothing behaviors. It includes behaviors such as trying to unwind, taking a break, engaging in enjoyable hobbies, and consuming cigarettes, alcohol, or food to reduce inner tension. While palliative actions provide short-term tension relief, an overreliance on somatic consumption or distraction can lead to maladaptive escapism.

3. Avoidance / Waiting (Vermijden / Afwachten)

Spanning 8 items, this dimension quantifies deliberate behavioral and cognitive postponement, evasion, and fatalistic resignation. It captures behaviors such as walking away from the problem, adopting a “wait-and-see” attitude, postponing difficult decisions, and pretending nothing is wrong. Although temporary avoidance can protect an individual from overwhelming sensory or affective input during acute crises, chronic avoidance often prevents necessary real-world resolution and perpetuates stress cycles.

4. Seeking Social Support (Sociale steun zoeken)

Reflected across 6 items, this construct taps into an individual’s inclination to mobilize their interpersonal network in times of distress. It assesses both instrumental support seeking (asking for tangible help, soliciting concrete advice) and emotional support seeking (sharing worries, seeking comfort, understanding, and emotional validation from family and friends). This dimension highlights the socio-relational resources drawn upon to buffer psychological strain.

5. Passive Reaction Pattern (Passief reactiepatroon)

Encompassing 7 items, this subscale measures a maladaptive cognitive-emotional coping pattern marked by paralysis, self-blame, brooding, and feelings of utter helplessness. Items evaluate tendencies to become completely consumed by difficulties, isolate oneself from social contacts, ruminate excessively over the past or future, escape into fantasy, and lose courage. Elevated scores on this scale show strong positive correlations with neuroticism, psychological distress, depressive symptomatology, and chronic psychosomatic complaints.

6. Expression of Emotions / Anger (Expressie van emoties)

Consisting of 3 items, this scale measures the externalization and behavioral discharge of affective tension, hostility, and frustration toward the perceived source of the problem. It evaluates behaviors such as expressing overt anger to the person deemed responsible, venting frustration, and letting others clearly know that one is enraged. While emotional expression can occasionally clarify interpersonal boundaries, unmodulated venting is often associated with interpersonal conflict and escalated autonomic reactivity.

7. Reassuring Thoughts (Geruststellende gedachten)

Comprising 8 items, this scale captures positive cognitive restructuring, self-encouragement, and perspective-taking. It assesses internal monologues such as reminding oneself that worse things happen, recalling that one has successfully overcome difficulties in the past, believing that every person encounters problems, and maintaining optimism that things will eventually resolve. This cognitive resilience mechanism moderates subjective distress by altering the perceived threat value of the situation.

Theoretical Framework

The UCL is theoretically anchored in the cognitive-phenomenological Transactional Model of Stress and Coping formulated by Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984). According to transactional theory, stress is not merely an external environmental stimulus nor solely an internal physiological response; rather, it is a dynamic relationship between the person and the environment that is cognitively appraised as taxing or exceeding the individual’s resources and endangering their well-being.

In the Lazarus and Folkman paradigm, the cognitive appraisal process occurs through two interconnected phases:

• Primary Appraisal: The evaluation of an event’s significance—whether it constitutes a threat, challenge, harm, or loss.
• Secondary Appraisal: The evaluation of available coping options, personal efficacy, and structural resources to address the threat.

Schreurs and colleagues (1988, 1993) adapted these core transactional principles while integrating European traditions of personality and differential psychology. While Lazarus emphasized coping as a fluid, context-dependent process that changes over the stages of a stressful encounter, clinical practitioners identified recurring, habitual styles of responding. The UCL bridges this conceptual divergence by assessing coping styles—relatively stable, dispositional cognitive and behavioral tendencies that an individual routinely deploys across diverse challenging life scenarios.

The UCL broadens the traditional dichotomy of problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping into a more granular, seven-dimensional model. Active Problem Solving corresponds directly to problem-focused coping, aimed directly at manipulating environmental conditions. In contrast, Reassuring Thoughts, Palliative Reaction, Expression of Emotions, and Passive Reaction represent nuanced manifestations of emotion-focused coping—some of which are highly adaptive (cognitive restructuring via Reassuring Thoughts), others neutral or physiologically stabilizing (Palliative Reaction), and others profoundly maladaptive (rumination and helplessness via Passive Reaction Pattern). By acknowledging these distinct behavioral repertoires, the theoretical model behind the UCL mirrors modern cognitive-behavioral principles of behavioral activation, emotional regulation, and cognitive reframing.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validities of the Utrecht Coping List have been extensively corroborated through psychometric research conducted over more than three decades across clinical, occupational, and population-based samples.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially established through extensive exploratory factor analyses on thousands of respondents from diverse normative groups (Schreurs et al., 1988, 1993). Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have consistently affirmed that the seven-factor oblique solution fits the data significantly better than alternative one-, two- (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused), or three-factor models. Standard goodness-of-fit indices in adult samples (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .06) support the distinctiveness of the seven dimensions.

Convergent and Divergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by examining correlations between UCL subscales and validated measures of personality, distress, and psychological functioning:

• Passive Reaction Pattern: Displays strong, positive correlations with Neuroticism (as measured by the NEO-PI-R or the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, with r values typically ranging between .50 and .68). It also correlates strongly with depressive symptoms on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and psychological distress on the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). Conversely, it correlates negatively with self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy.
• Active Problem Solving: Exhibits robust positive correlations with Conscientiousness (r ≈ .40 to .55), internal health locus of control, and general self-efficacy scales, while correlating inversely with perceived stress and burnout depersonalization.
• Seeking Social Support: Correlates positively with Extraversion and Agreeableness, affirming that individuals who are socially outgoing and cooperative naturally lean on interpersonal networks during acute distress.
• Reassuring Thoughts: Demonstrates positive associations with dispositional optimism (e.g., Life Orientation Test-Revised) and negative correlations with trait anxiety and catastrophic thinking.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Longitudinal health studies have affirmed the predictive validity of the UCL across various clinical populations. In longitudinal studies involving cardiovascular patients, chronic pain sufferers, and oncology cohorts, elevated baseline scores on the Passive Reaction Pattern predicted sustained levels of functional impairment, higher healthcare utilization, and lower health-related quality of life over 12- to 24-month follow-up periods, even after adjusting for baseline illness severity. In occupational settings, low Active Problem Solving combined with high Avoidance and high Expression of Emotions prospectively predicted elevated rates of sick leave, emotional exhaustion, and burnout syndrome among healthcare workers and educators (Brosschot et al., 1994; Schreurs et al., 1993).

Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the UCL have been substantiated in large-scale normative investigations (Schreurs et al., 1993; Sanderman & Ormel, 1992):

Internal Consistency

Cronbach’s alpha (coefficient alpha) values vary predictably according to subscale length, but overall meet rigorous psychometric standards for both group research and individual clinical decision-making:

• Active Problem Solving (7 items): Cronbach’s α typically ranges between .80 and .85.
• Palliative Reaction (8 items): Cronbach’s α typically ranges between .74 and .79.
• Avoidance / Waiting (8 items): Cronbach’s α typically ranges between .70 and .76.
• Seeking Social Support (6 items): Cronbach’s α typically ranges between .82 and .88, displaying robust scale homogeneity.
• Passive Reaction Pattern (7 items): Cronbach’s α typically ranges between .76 and .82.
• Expression of Emotions / Anger (3 items): Cronbach’s α typically ranges between .63 and .70; this slightly lower internal consistency is largely attributable to the brief, 3-item composition of the subscale.
• Reassuring Thoughts (8 items): Cronbach’s α typically ranges between .71 and .77.

Test-Retest Reliability

Test-retest coefficients evaluated across intervals ranging from two weeks to several months reflect substantial temporal stability, supporting the conceptualization of the UCL as a measure of enduring coping disposition rather than transient state fluctuations. Test-retest reliability coefficients (r_tt) over a 4-to-6-week interval generally range from .65 to .84 across all subscales, with Active Problem Solving, Seeking Social Support, and Passive Reaction Pattern showing the highest temporal consistency.

Factor Analysis

The psychometric architecture of the UCL was originally derived through classical Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations on sample cohorts totaling several thousand community-dwelling and clinical participants in the Netherlands (Schreurs et al., 1988). An oblique rotation was theoretically and empirically mandated because coping mechanisms are not mutually exclusive orthogonal constructs in everyday human functioning; rather, individuals frequently combine cognitive reassurance with active problem solving or combine avoidance with palliative soothing.

The empirical extraction criteria—incorporating the Kaiser-Guttman eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule alongside Cattell’s scree plot inspection—supported the retention of seven primary factors. Factor loadings for primary items consistently exceeded .40, with the vast majority of items displaying salient loadings between .48 and .78 on their assigned latent constructs. Cross-loadings on secondary factors were minimal, generally remaining below .25.

In subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) investigations (e.g., Sanderman & Ormel, 1992), the seven-factor oblique measurement model demonstrated superior fit compared to hierarchical or competing models:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): Typically observed between 1.8 and 2.5 in large community cohorts, indicating an acceptable structural fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) & Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically achieve values ranging between .90 and .94, confirming good structural adequacy across diverse demographic strata.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Remains consistently below .06.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently estimated between .045 and .058 (90% CI [.041, .063]), indicating low residual error.

Higher-order factor modeling has revealed that the seven subscales can be further consolidated into two overarching second-order coping orientations: an Active / Approach-Oriented Coping meta-dimension (subsuming Active Problem Solving, Seeking Social Support, and Reassuring Thoughts) and an Avoidant / Emotion-Focused Maladaptive Coping meta-dimension (subsuming Passive Reaction Pattern, Avoidance/Waiting, and Palliative Reaction). However, clinical diagnostic best practice continues to favor utilizing the seven individual subscale profile scores, as granular distinctions provide actionable therapeutic targets.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report psychological questionnaire / dispositional behavioral rating scale.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil inventory or standardized digital computer-based questionnaire.
• Total Item Count: 47 items.
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert frequency scale:
  • 1 = zelden of nooit (seldom or never)
  • 2 = soms (sometimes)
  • 3 = vaak (often)
  • 4 = zeer vaak (very often)
• Subscales & Item Composition:
  • 1. Actief aanpakken (Active Problem Solving): 7 items (Items 3, 9, 13, 16, 23, 33, 40). Score range: 7 – 28.
  • 2. Palliatieve reactie (Palliative Reaction): 8 items (Items 2, 8, 12, 18, 22, 28, 38, 45). Score range: 8 – 32.
  • 3. Vermijden / Afwachten (Avoidance / Waiting): 8 items (Items 4, 10, 15, 21, 26, 31, 35, 43). Score range: 8 – 32.
  • 4. Sociale steun zoeken (Seeking Social Support): 6 items (Items 5, 14, 20, 24, 30, 41). Score range: 6 – 24.
  • 5. Passief reactiepatroon (Passive Reaction Pattern): 7 items (Items 1, 7, 11, 17, 27, 34, 42). Score range: 7 – 28.
  • 6. Expressie van emoties (Expression of Emotions): 3 items (Items 6, 25, 37). Score range: 3 – 12.
  • 7. Geruststellende gedachten (Reassuring Thoughts): 8 items (Items 19, 29, 32, 36, 39, 44, 46, 47). Score range: 8 – 32.
• Scoring Rules:
  • There are no reverse-scored items; all items are scored directly according to the chosen numerical value (1 to 4).
  • Subscale scores are obtained by calculating the direct sum of the designated item responses belonging to that subscale.
  • Raw subscale scores are interpreted by converting them to normative sten scores, deciles, or percentiles using stratified reference tables provided in the test manual (stratified by gender, age groups, clinical vs. non-clinical populations, and occupational samples).
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents (from age 14), adults, and elderly populations across psychiatric, medical, and normal community settings.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The theoretical and preliminary validation work for the Utrecht Coping List began in the mid-1980s, culminating in the first formal publication of the test manual in 1988 by P. J. G. Schreurs and colleagues, followed by an expanded and revised manual in 1993 (re-issued in subsequent years with updated normative tables, including 2000 and beyond).

The UCL is a copyrighted psychometric instrument. The commercial publishing and distribution rights have historically been managed by Boom uitgevers Amsterdam (formerly Harcourt Assessment / Swets & Zeitlinger). Clinicians, organizational assessors, and commercial users must purchase the standardized test forms, manuals, scoring keys, or digital software credits directly from the official test publisher or licensed assessment platforms (e.g., Pearson Clinical, Boom Testweb). For non-profit academic research, university researchers frequently obtain permission directly from the authors or publisher, subject to licensing and academic fair-use agreements.

References

• Brosschot, J. F., Gebhardt, W. A., & Godaert, G. L. (1994). Internal representation of emotional situations and physiological stress responses. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(6), 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90055-8
• 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
• Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 844–854. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.844
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Sanderman, R., & Ormel, J. (1992). De Utrechtse Coping Lijst (UCL): Validiteit en betrouwbaarheid [The Utrecht Coping List (UCL): Validity and reliability]. Gedrag & Gezondheid: Tijdschrift voor Psychologie en Gezondheid, 20(1), 32–37.
• Schreurs, P. J. G., van de Willige, G., Brosschot, J. F., Tellegen, B., & Graus, G. M. H. (1993). De Utrechtse Coping Lijst: UCL handleiding [The Utrecht Coping List: UCL manual] (Herziene druk). Swets & Zeitlinger.
• Schreurs, P. J. G., van de Willige, G., Tellegen, B., & Brosschot, J. F. (1988). De Utrechtse Coping Lijst: UCL. Swets & Zeitlinger.

Items of the Scale