Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales of Coping Intelligence: Psychometric Characteristics in a Sample of Men

Background and Problem. The Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) method is highly sought after in scientific research and practical applications abroad; however, this method is rarely used in Russia. The development of a concise and reliable tool for assessing coping intelligence will allow for the diagnosis of an individual’s ability to cope with different types of stress and reduce the risk of stress-related diseases. Objective. To conduct a psychometric validation of the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Coping Intelligence (BARS of CI) in terms of reliability, construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Methods. The BARS of CI assess the ability to cope with psychomotor (CIM), intellectual (CII), and communicative (CIC) loads under standardized experimental conditions. The sample included 158 men aged 20 to 54 years (M = 35.44, SD = 9.42) residing in major Russian cities. Results. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses support a four-factor model comprising the scales: CII, CIM, CIC, and Cooperation. The stability of the CI structure was confirmed on a random subsample. Cronbach’s α coefficients for the scales ranged from .667 (TS for coping with communicative load) to .858 (SE for coping with psychomotor load). The integrated coping intelligence score in men was at an average level; the ability to cope with psychomotor load (CIM) was most pronounced, while cooperation (COOP) under complex load was the least pronounced. The abilities to cope with intellectual (CII) and communicative (CIC) loads were at a comparable level. Men tend to deliberate about a stressful situation (AP) and attempt to transform it (TS). Coping intelligence was correlated with psychometric intelligence (Raven’s SPM; p = .000), success in solving logical problems (ELO; p = .000), intellectual activity of temperament (p = .000), general temperamental activity (p = .004), and general adaptability (p = .020), as well as with the coping strategies of “work and achievement” (p = .007), “friends” (p = .039), and “non-coping” (p = .001). Coping intelligence was not associated with the type of frustration reactions or hardiness (with the exception of “control”, p = .044).  Conclusion.  The construct, convergent, and discriminant validity of the BARS of CI method, as well as the reliability of its scales, were confirmed.

Introduction

The problem of assessing an individual’s ability to effectively cope with overload in professional and everyday activities has become particularly acute. Traditional methods for assessing coping behavior, which rely on questionnaires and self-reports, focus on stable coping styles, fail to account for specific behavioral manifestations in the context of situations, and are limited by subjective evaluations. Questionnaires rarely link coping reactions to specific stressors and do not assess the effectiveness of the actions taken, thus limiting their practical value. As a solution to this problem, Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) are proposed, shifting the focus from questionnaires to a qualitative analysis of actual behavior during stressor exposure. This approach allows for the study of coping intelligence as a dynamic process, revealing the relationship between the specific type of load, individual characteristics, and the effectiveness of behavior in real-world conditions.

Coping intelligence manifests as an individual’s ability to cope with load, resolve stressful situations, and maintain health (Kuvaeva & Volkova, 2024). Coping intelligence is activated in novel, atypical, and difficult conditions that involve evaluating solution options and flexibly managing resources. Any activity, including work, to varying degrees involves problem-solving (intellectual load), interacting with people (communicative load), and movement (psychomotor load) of differing intensities. An instrument for assessing coping intelligence was developed by E. Libina (Libin, 2017). Although the questionnaire is named “coping intelligence,” it does not actually assess coping intelligence, nor does it focus the researcher’s attention on an individual’s ability to endure different types of loads.

1.1. The Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) Method

The classic article by Smith & Kendall (1963), “Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales,” is a foundational work. The Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) method was first described here. It is based on a “retranslation of expectations” procedure. In Smith and Kendall’s study, independent groups of head nurses recalled examples from their experience, identified parameters of successful job performance, and placed these examples as anchors on vertical graphic scales (Smith & Kendall, 1963).

BARS incorporates the critical incident technique. This method is a systematic approach to collecting and analyzing specific, observable behaviors that are critical for effective performance in a given activity (Flanagan, 1954). Incidents must be sufficiently complete and occur in situations that allow for understanding the purpose of an individual’s actions and their consequences. The value of the method lies in its shift from general impressions and subjective assessments to precise, specific data based on facts about real behavior.

The advantages of BARS include high objectivity, transparency, effective feedback and development, and improved rating accuracy. The identification of specific behavioral examples (anchors) minimizes the influence of personal bias, the halo effect, and other rater errors. The rating scale clearly defines examples of highly effective and ineffective behavior, which can serve as a ready-made tool for feedback aimed at achieving desired performance. Behavioral anchors help the rater more accurately recall and classify an employee’s actual actions, rather than relying on general impressions. If a BARS is used within an organization, all managers begin to use uniform, clear standards for evaluation, ensuring consistency. The disadvantages of BARS are the high labor intensity and duration of development, difficulty of modification and updating, and narrow specificity. Collecting critical incidents, creating and validating scales for each dimension requires significant time and financial resources. Scales can become outdated, for example, when job requirements change; revising scales is as complex as the initial development. Scales created for one profession (e.g., a salesperson) are completely inapplicable to another (e.g., a programmer).

Thus, the BARS method is a performance appraisal tool where rating scales are anchored to specific, observable examples of effective and ineffective behavior. BARS are rating scales where each scale represents one of the key performance indicators and is typically based on five or more critical incidents reflecting observable work behaviors. Scale values typically range from 1 to 5, 1 to 7, or 1 to 10, where the highest scale value is assigned to highly effective behavior and the lowest to highly ineffective behavior. A BARS instrument may consist of five to ten vertical scales (Debnath et al., 2015).

Currently, there is a growing interest in the BARS method. It is used for comprehensive competency assessment of pilots (Barron, Rolwes, & Rose, 2022); evaluating teacher effectiveness (Dzakwan, Sunardi, & Yudhana, 2023), its impact on student performance (Karnia, 2024), and in blended learning methods (Matosas-López & Cuevas-Molano, 2022); assessing non-technical skills of medical students (Holland et al., 2022); evaluating neonatal behavior (Achenbach & Ruffle, 2000; Başdaş et al., 2018); neurobehavior of preterm neonates (Malak et al., 2021); employee performance in organizations (Sari, Satriawan, & Hartiati, 2024); and writing skills (Ventouris, 2022). The scales allow for obtaining precise assessments of an individual’s performance and behavior, taking into account their age characteristics.

1.2. Critical Incident Technique and Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Stress and Coping

The work of O’Driscoll and Cooper (1994, 1996) was among the first to assess critical incidents related to workplace stress. The authors highlighted shortcomings of traditional coping questionnaires, including a lack of contextual specificity and consideration of unique stress sources, respondent biases, neglect of the dynamics of coping, and low predictive validity (O’Driscoll & Cooper, 1994).

As a solution to these problems, O’Driscoll and Cooper proposed using qualitative and context-oriented approaches. They developed a critical incident technique to identify behavior under stress (Critical Incident Analysis, CIA). They were interested in three components of the stressful transaction: the stressor(s), the individual’s behavioral responses, and the consequences of these responses. Based on the analysis of critical incidents, a classification of various behavioral coping strategies was developed: problem-focused strategies, emotion-focused strategies, and avoidance. Problem-focused strategies manifest in active attempts to change the stressful situation (e.g., task restructuring, information seeking, directly discussing the problem). Emotion-focused strategies reflect attempts to manage one’s emotional reactions to stress (e.g., avoidance, seeking social support, detachment). Avoidance is behavior aimed at escaping the problem (e.g., procrastination, absenteeism). The study by O’Driscoll and Cooper (1996) demonstrates that the type of coping strategy used often depends on the stressor source. Some strategies (especially problem-focused ones) were generally more effective in reducing stress and enhancing well-being, while avoidance was often associated with more negative outcomes (O’Driscoll & Cooper, 1996).

Romanian psychologists M. Anitei and M. Chraif developed a BARS for diagnosing students’ adaptive abilities in an academic context, based on coping and emotional control (Anitei & Chraif, 2013). It should be noted that student behavior is assessed in a fairly detailed manner through criteria such as work productivity, psycho-emotional state characteristics, and the degree of involvement in interactions with peers and instructors. The main variables of adaptive abilities are positive coping style, negative coping style, positive emotions, and negative emotions (Anitei & Chraif, 2013).

The aim of this pilot study is to develop and test the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Coping Intelligence (BARS of CI) under experimental conditions in a sample of men.

Method

2.1. Procedure for Developing the BARS of CI

Developing a BARS requires adherence to a standardized procedure and is a very labor-intensive process. The five stages of developing the BARS of CI were: 1) collecting critical incidents related to coping with different types of load; 2) forming behavioral categories—grouping collected incidents into key measurable variables; 3) identifying incidents for which a high degree of agreement is reached among experts; 4) assigning a numerical value to each behavioral incident; 5) developing the final version of the BARS, including the names of coping intelligence properties, a numerical scale, and a list of anchor behavioral examples corresponding to different levels of performance effectiveness in coping with different types of load (Flanagan, 1954).

Stage 1. Collection of Critical Incidents. The selection of critical incidents occurred through observation of the behavior of the first fifty participants under experimental conditions (October–December 2023). A total of 44 incidents were recorded for coping with psychomotor load, 30 incidents for coping with intellectual load, and 25 incidents for coping with communicative load. An incident is considered critical if it reflects a specific observable action that has a significant impact on goal achievement and outcome success or leads to failure (Flanagan, 1954).

Examples of critical incidents for coping with psychomotor load (cycling ergometer):

• Productive: Rehearsing the instructions aloud, drinking water, meditating (participant pedaling with eyes closed), adjusting the seat during the trial, shifting center of gravity (forward with pressure on pedals, sideways), expressing positive emotions, asking for the air conditioning to be turned on, engaging in off-topic conversation.
• Non-productive: Abruptly stopping the trial, hyperarousal, panic, aggressive behavior.

Examples of critical incidents for coping with intellectual load:

• Productive: Concentrated task execution, verbalizing reasoning, using scratch paper, expressing positive emotions, showing interest in the task, accepting help from the experimenter, reflecting on errors.
• Non-productive: Engaging in off-topic conversation, swearing, talking on the phone, asking to smoke or use the restroom, expressing doubts about the decision to participate in the experiment.

Examples of critical incidents for coping with communicative load:

• Productive: Asking questions to comprehend the task, requesting help with writing responses due to joint immobility or pain, expressing positive emotions.
• Non-productive: Engaging in off-topic conversation, skipping lines in the stimulus material, slow reading speed under time constraints, showing aggression towards the examiner, unwillingness to continue the task, expressing negative emotions, resisting verbalizing tasks and answers.

Stage 2. Formation of Behavioral Categories. The collected incidents were grouped into key measurable variables constituting the behavioral categories: Analyzing the problem (AP), Transformation of the situation (TS), Emotional response (ER), Self-efficacy (SE), and Willingness to cooperate (WE). The names of these categories were formulated based on a three-dimensional scheme for analyzing coping behavior and the criteria for coping intelligence productivity, depending on the degree of generalization of the orienting basis of coping (Volkova & Kuvaeva, 2023). This three-dimensional scheme for coping analysis includes behavioral vectors such as managing the stressful situation, emotional regulation, and avoiding the stressful situation. The criteria for coping intelligence productivity, in the narrow sense, are associated with the degree of differentiation and hierarchization of mental representations of stress, as well as the speed, flexibility, and variability of coping strategies.
The five properties of coping intelligence relevant to the behavioral categories are:

• Analyzing the problem (AP): Constructing an orienting basis for the specific situation in which the individual finds themselves and searching for a solution.
• Transformation of the situation (TS): The degree to which the found solution is implemented, reflected in actions, as well as the ability to switch to another solution in case of an unsuccessful attempt.
• Emotional response (ER): The degree of positivity of the emotional background when coping with the load.
• Self-efficacy (SE): The degree of confidence in one’s ability to cope with the load despite emerging difficulties.
• Willingness to cooperate (WE): The degree of openness to others’ experience and acceptance of instrumental and emotional support.

Stage 3. Expert Evaluation. A group of experts assessed the degree to which each critical incident corresponded to the identified property of coping intelligence, where a score of 1 was assigned to low-productivity behavior and 5 to high-productivity behavior. It is important to emphasize that the experts were a separate group not involved in the observation and selection of critical incidents or the development of the five properties (AP, TS, ER, SE, WE). The results of the expert evaluation are presented in Table 1.

Stage 4. Assigning Numerical Values. Each behavioral incident received a numerical value on a scale from 1 to 5, separately for psychomotor, intellectual, and communicative loads. After piloting these version-specific scales, we decided not to use them. This approach proved too complex for the experimenters.

Stage 5. Final Version. The final version of the BARS of CI is universal and suitable for assessing behavior when coping with psychomotor, intellectual, and communicative loads. This instrument includes five scales for coping intelligence (AP, TS, ER, SE, WE), an ordinal scale (from 1 to 5), and a list of anchor behavioral patterns. The BARS of CI is presented in Appendix 1. It should be emphasized that the instrument is used by the experimenter when observing an individual’s behavior during load exposure.

Calculation of Coping Intelligence Indicators: Indicators for coping with psychomotor, intellectual, and communicative loads are calculated as follows:

• Analyzing the problem (AP) = m1 + i1 + k1
• Transformation of the situation (TS) = m2 + i2 + k2
• Emotional response (ER) = m3 + i3 + k3
• Self-efficacy (SE) = m4 + i4 + k4
• Willingness to cooperate (WE) = m5 + i5 + k5
• Integral Index of Coping Intelligence (IICI) = AP + TS + ER + SE + WE

The maximum score for each of the AP, TS, ER, SE, and WE scales is 15 points, and for the IICI, it is 75 points. The procedure for converting raw scores of the IICI into stens and determining the level of CI is shown in Table 2.

2.2. Load Testing Procedure

The study design was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Ural State Medical University” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Protocol No. 5 of June 16, 2023). An extract from the LEC meeting is available on the website https://ipran.ru/notice/ethic/. Participation was voluntary and uncompensated; each participant signed an informed consent form.

We opted not to use the “gold standard” Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) because this standardized laboratory method involves a short-term stressful situation and a limited number of tasks (Kirschbaum, Bartussek, & Hellhammer, 1992). Our experimental protocol simulates different types of activity relevant to work and daily life and includes tasks of varying difficulty, intensity, and duration.

Psychomotor Activity: A baseline recording, an orthostatic test, pedaling on a cycle ergometer for a minimum of 5 minutes at a maximum load of 120 W until exhaustion, and pedaling in a recovery mode.

• Intellectual Activity: Solving tasks such as word generalization, conceptual synthesis (Kholodnaya et al., 2019), classification (Kolga, 1976), determining the truth or falsity of statements (ELO; Rusalov & Volkova, 2021), identifying patterns (Raven’s SPM; Raven, 2012), and assembling a three-dimensional figure from a model (Unicube; Nikitin, 2009).
• Communicative Activity: Verbalizing instructions and questionnaire items aloud (Rosenzweig Frustration Test; Yasyukova, 2021); reading aloud and retelling complex texts; discussing one’s health status and lifestyle, the intensity of personal and professional life; reflecting on perceptions of stress and resources used when coping with difficult life situations.
  It should be noted that the experimental situation itself is stressful: time constraints for task completion, early awakening, fasting and hunger, imposed routine activity lasting 3.5-4 hours, video recording, venous blood sampling before and after the experiment, and discomfort from electrodes used for heart rate variability monitoring. Results regarding the genetic and biochemical correlates of coping intelligence obtained within this experimental protocol are presented in our other works (Volkova et al., 2024; Volkova et al., 2025).

2.3. Sample

The sample consisted of 158 men aged 20 to 54 years (M = 35.44, SD = 9.42), all residents of the major Russian cities of Moscow and Yekaterinburg.

2.4. Psychodiagnostic methods

Coping intelligence, i.e., the ability to cope with different types of loads, was assessed using the BARS of CI. To test the convergent and discriminant validity of the BARS of CI, the following methods were used:

1. Questionnaire of Formal-Dynamic Properties of Individuality (OFDSI-26; Rusalov, 2012).
2. Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ-77; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007).
3. Hardiness Survey by S. Maddi, adapted by D.A. Leontiev and E.I. Rasskazova (Leontiev, 2006).
4. Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 2012).
5. Elementary Logical Operations test (ELO; Rusalov & Volkova, 2021).
6. Adolescent Coping Scale (ACS) by E. Frydenberg and R. Lewis (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993), adapted by T.L. Kryukova (Kryukova, 2007), and adjusted for an adult sample (Volkova et al., 2024).
7. Rosenzweig Frustration Test, adapted by L.A. Yasyukova (Yasyukova, 2021).
8. Structured interview aimed at assessing the stressfulness of personal and professional life, health status, and lifestyle (beneficial and harmful habits).

2.5. Statistical Data Processing

Mathematical data processing was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0 and Jamovi 2.7.8 software. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to determine the structure of CI. Scale reliability was analyzed using Cronbach’s α. Correlation analysis (Kendall’s tau-β) was used to identify relationships between items and scales of the BARS of CI, as well as to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the method.

Results

3.1. Sample Representativeness

The sample included subjects of varying ages and educational levels, from different professions and positions, with different marital statuses, and in a quantity sufficient for validation. To assess the stability of the scales with sample variation, a random subsample (60% of the total sample) was drawn from the general population.

3.2. Descriptive Statistics

In men, the CI properties of transforming (TS) and analyzing (AP) the stressful situation were more pronounced, while willingness to cooperate (WE) was less pronounced (Table 3).

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Coping Intelligence Scales

3.3. Structural Validity of the BARS of CI

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = .740) for the total sample and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Approx. Chi-Square = 733, df = 105, *p* < .001) indicated that the data were suitable for factor analysis. We initially hypothesized that the factor structure of CI would consist of three components: coping intelligence in the psychomotor domain (items m1-m5), coping intelligence in the intellectual domain (items i1-i5), and coping intelligence in the communicative domain (items k1-k5). However, exploratory factor analysis supported a four-factor model (Table 4). The RMSEA fit index (< .08) for the four-factor model indicated an acceptable fit of the model to the data (Nasledov, 2013).

Table 4. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Structural Model (Exploratory Factor Analysis)

The four-factor structure of the BARS of CI, presented in Table 5, explained 63.22% of the variance. The factors were named based on a content analysis of the items loading onto each factor:

Factor 1 (16.88% variance): Coping Intelligence for Overcoming Psychomotor Load (CIM). This factor combined the CI dimensions of transforming the situation (m2), self-efficacy in the psychomotor domain (m4), emotional response (m3), and analyzing the psychomotor task (m1).

Factor 2 (16.27% variance): Coping Intelligence for Overcoming Intellectual Load (CII). This factor included transforming the situation (i2), self-efficacy (i4), emotional response (i3), and analyzing the task (i1).

Factor 3 (15.41% variance): Coping Intelligence for Overcoming Communicative Load (CIC). This factor included self-efficacy in interaction with others (k4), emotional response (k3), transforming the communicative situation (k2), and analyzing the communicative situation (k1).

Factor 4 (14.65% variance): Cooperation (COOP). This factor combined items related to the willingness to accept external help and cooperate when solving intellectual (i5), communicative (k5), and psychomotor (m5) tasks.

Table 5. Factor Matrix of BARS of CI Items (Total Sample)

Table 7. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Structural Model (CFA)

In the next stage, confirmatory factor analysis was applied. The goodness-of-fit indices for the structural model (Table 7) showed acceptable results. The CMIN/df value of 2.725 (< 3) indicated a good fit; RMSEA = .0672 (< .08) suggested a good fit; CFI = .917 (> .90) demonstrated a good fit (Byrne, 2010). Thus, all fit indices were within acceptable ranges.

The results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that in the CIM factor, the highest standardized weight was for m4 (.850), the lowest for m1 (.545), with m2 and m3 being similarly represented (.729 and .700, respectively). In the CII factor, the highest weight was for i2 (.780), the lowest for i1 (.557), with i4 and i3 being nearly equal (.710 and .639, respectively). In the CIC factor, the highest weights were for k4 (.834) and k3 (.809), and the lowest for k1 (.486) and k2 (.564). In the COOP factor, the highest weights were for m5 (.718) and i5 (.721), and the lowest for k5 (.677).

3.4. Reliability of the BARS of CI Scales

Cronbach’s α coefficient for the Integral Index of Coping Intelligence was .723, indicating acceptable reliability. The internal consistency remained acceptable for the different modality-specific BARS scales: Coping Intelligence for Overcoming Psychomotor Load (.786), Coping Intelligence for Overcoming Intellectual Load (.745), Coping Intelligence for Overcoming Communicative Load (.734), and Cooperation (.744). The internal consistency of the BARS of CI instrument was further supported by the results of correlation analysis (Table 8).

Table 8. Correlations Among Items and Scales of the BARS of CI

Table 9. Correlations of Items with the “Cooperation” Scale

High correlations were found between the “Willingness to cooperate” items and the “Cooperation” scale for overcoming psychomotor, intellectual, and communicative types of loads (Table 9).

3.5. Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To test the convergent validity of the BARS of CI, Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 2012) and the Elementary Logical Operations test (ELO; Rusalov & Volkova, 2021) were used. Significant positive correlations were found between the IICI and the measure of psychometric intelligence (τ = .369, p < .001) and the ability to perform elementary logical operations (τ = .388, p < .001).

Testing the discriminant validity of the BARS of CI involves distinguishing between concepts/constructs that are theoretically unrelated. The IICI was not correlated with overall hardiness (τ = .159, p = .063), commitment (τ = .150, p = .080), or challenge (τ = .079, p = .356). However, the IICI was positively correlated with the hardiness component of control (τ = .173, p = .044).

3.6. Relationship Between CI and Individual Characteristics

The IICI was positively correlated with temperament scales (OFDSI-26), including the index of intellectual activity (IIA; τ = .324, p < .001), the index of general temperamental activity (IOA; τ = .240, p = .004), and the index of general adaptability (IOAd; τ = .193, p = .020). These results are consistent with correlations between the BARS of CI and the STQ-77: the IICI was related to intellectual ergicity (ERI; τ = .175, p = .003) and probabilistic forecasting (PRO; τ = .128, p = .032). The IICI was positively correlated with the coping strategies “work/achievement” (τ = .222, p = .007) and “friends” (τ = .171, p = .039), and negatively correlated with the strategy “non-coping” (τ = -.270, p = .001). No significant correlations were found between the IICI and the overall stressfulness of life, the number of difficult challenges in professional and personal life over the past six months, or frustration reaction types (p > .05).

3.7. Coping Intelligence Profile in Men

The Integral Index of Coping Intelligence in men was at an average level (see Table 2). Analysis of the modality-specific CI scales indicated that men demonstrated a more pronounced ability to cope with psychomotor loads and a less pronounced willingness to cooperate. The abilities to cope with intellectual and communicative loads were developed to a similar degree.

Table 10. Descriptive Statistics of Modality-Specific Scales of Coping Intelligence

This paper describes the development process and the results of the psychometric validation of the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Coping Intelligence (BARS of CI). The first stage of development focused on collecting critical incidents recorded in laboratory conditions as participants coped with psychomotor, intellectual, and communicative loads. The second stage involved identifying key measurable variables based on a theoretical analysis of coping intelligence manifestations and the analysis of critical incidents. The dimensions identified were Analyzing the problem (AP), Transforming the situation (TS), Emotional response (ER), Self-efficacy (SE), and Willingness to cooperate (WE). The third stage included meticulous work by experts to evaluate each critical incident against the identified key dimensions and to identify the most consensual expert evaluations. The fourth stage consisted of assigning a numerical value (1 to 5) to each relevant incident based on its impact on coping effectiveness under experimental conditions. The fifth stage culminated in the final version of the BARS of CI, which includes a list of anchor behavioral examples and is suitable for assessing coping with different types of loads. This sequential and painstaking procedure mitigates the limitations of subjectivity and potential bias in assessing coping intelligence.

The psychometric validation of the BARS of CI supports a four-factor structure of coping intelligence in both the total sample and a random subsample. The overall reliability of the BARS of CI is acceptable (Cronbach’s α ranging from .667 to .858). The convergent validity of the method was confirmed by the identified correlations between the Integral Index of Coping Intelligence and scores on Raven’s SPM, success in performing logical operations, intellectual activity of temperament, probabilistic forecasting, and intellectual endurance. The discriminant validity of the method is supported by the absence of relationships between the BARS of CI scales and measures of hardiness (except for control) and frustration reactions.

The BARS of CI method offers several advantages over other instruments. A comparison of the BARS of CI with the BARS for diagnosing students’ adaptive abilities (Anitei & Chraif, 2013) highlights its versatility in assessing an individual’s coping with different types of loads and its potential applicability across various activities (work, study, sports, leisure, etc.). Compared to the CIQ questionnaire (Libin, 2017), the BARS of CI is more concise in terms of the number of items. Our instrument allows for capturing the intellectual activity associated with constructing a mental model of a stressful situation and analyzing options for its resolution, taking into account individual and collective coping experience. In contrast, the CIQ questionnaire is designed exclusively to measure the frequency of coping strategies within cognitive, emotional, and behavioral modalities. The BARS of CI is indeed aimed at assessing intellectual functions, as evidenced by the positive correlations of its integral index with intelligence level (Raven’s SPM), intellectual temperament scales, and success in performing logical operations.

The Integral Index of Coping Intelligence in men was at an average level. Analysis of the coping intelligence profile suggests that men cope better with psychomotor loads (CIM) and equally well with intellectual (CII) and communicative (CIC) loads. When facing complex loads, men less frequently demonstrate a willingness to cooperate. They tend to analyze the stressful situation (AP) and attempt to transform it (TS). The integral index of coping intelligence was positively correlated with general temperamental activity and general adaptability, the problem-focused strategy “work and achievement,” and the strategies “friends” and negatively correlated with the strategy “non-coping.” These results are partially consistent with findings from meta-analyses (Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002; Wong et al., 2017).

A meta-analysis summarizing over 300 studies on gender differences in coping strategies suggests that men more frequently use problem-focused strategies, especially in situations perceived as controllable. Under intellectual load, men primarily attempt to actively solve the problem, systematize information, and gain control over the situation (Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002). A meta-analysis of 78 studies (N = 19,453) showed that traditional masculine norms can create a psychological trap for men. Striving to meet ideals of strength, self-reliance, and success, men in situations of failure or uncontrollable stress may deprive themselves of a highly adaptive tool—the ability to seek support and collaboratively solve problems. Consequently, their main tactic becomes avoidance of both problems and associated negative emotions, which can exacerbate psychological issues in the long term (Wong et al., 2017). However, in our study, men acknowledged the resource of friendly support when coping with difficult situations.

The work of Huang and Li (2022) demonstrated the role of emotional intelligence as a factor in productive coping behavior. The higher the emotional intelligence in men, the more frequently they use problem-focused coping (active planning, seeking solutions), seek social support, and engage in positive reappraisal of the situation. In contrast, men with low emotional intelligence tend to exhibit maladaptive strategies such as avoidance, self-blame, and emotional ventilation (unrestrained, impulsive expression of anger or frustration) (Huang & Li, 2022).

Future research should aim to compare the manifestations of coping intelligence in men and women under standardized conditions of complex load exposure.

Discussion

This paper describes the development process and the results of the psychometric validation of the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Coping Intelligence (BARS of CI). The first stage of development focused on collecting critical incidents recorded in laboratory conditions as participants coped with psychomotor, intellectual, and communicative loads. The second stage involved identifying key measurable variables based on a theoretical analysis of coping intelligence manifestations and the analysis of critical incidents. The dimensions identified were Analyzing the problem (AP), Transforming the situation (TS), Emotional response (ER), Self-efficacy (SE), and Willingness to cooperate (WE). The third stage included meticulous work by experts to evaluate each critical incident against the identified key dimensions and to identify the most consensual expert evaluations. The fourth stage consisted of assigning a numerical value (1 to 5) to each relevant incident based on its impact on coping effectiveness under experimental conditions. The fifth stage culminated in the final version of the BARS of CI, which includes a list of anchor behavioral examples and is suitable for assessing coping with different types of loads. This sequential and painstaking procedure mitigates the limitations of subjectivity and potential bias in assessing coping intelligence.

The psychometric validation of the BARS of CI supports a four-factor structure of coping intelligence in both the total sample and a random subsample. The overall reliability of the BARS of CI is acceptable (Cronbach’s α ranging from .667 to .858). The convergent validity of the method was confirmed by the identified correlations between the Integral Index of Coping Intelligence and scores on Raven’s SPM, success in performing logical operations, intellectual activity of temperament, probabilistic forecasting, and intellectual endurance. The discriminant validity of the method is supported by the absence of relationships between the BARS of CI scales and measures of hardiness (except for control) and frustration reactions.

The BARS of CI method offers several advantages over other instruments. A comparison of the BARS of CI with the BARS for diagnosing students’ adaptive abilities (Anitei & Chraif, 2013) highlights its versatility in assessing an individual’s coping with different types of loads and its potential applicability across various activities (work, study, sports, leisure, etc.). Compared to the CIQ questionnaire (Libin, 2017), the BARS of CI is more concise in terms of the number of items. Our instrument allows for capturing the intellectual activity associated with constructing a mental model of a stressful situation and analyzing options for its resolution, taking into account individual and collective coping experience. In contrast, the CIQ questionnaire is designed exclusively to measure the frequency of coping strategies within cognitive, emotional, and behavioral modalities. The BARS of CI is indeed aimed at assessing intellectual functions, as evidenced by the positive correlations of its integral index with intelligence level (Raven’s SPM), intellectual temperament scales, and success in performing logical operations.

The Integral Index of Coping Intelligence in men was at an average level. Analysis of the coping intelligence profile suggests that men cope better with psychomotor loads (CIM) and equally well with intellectual (CII) and communicative (CIC) loads. When facing complex loads, men less frequently demonstrate a willingness to cooperate. They tend to analyze the stressful situation (AP) and attempt to transform it (TS). The integral index of coping intelligence was positively correlated with general temperamental activity and general adaptability, the problem-focused strategy “work and achievement,” and the strategies “friends” and negatively correlated with the strategy “non-coping.” These results are partially consistent with findings from meta-analyses (Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002; Wong et al., 2017).

A meta-analysis summarizing over 300 studies on gender differences in coping strategies suggests that men more frequently use problem-focused strategies, especially in situations perceived as controllable. Under intellectual load, men primarily attempt to actively solve the problem, systematize information, and gain control over the situation (Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002). A meta-analysis of 78 studies (N = 19,453) showed that traditional masculine norms can create a psychological trap for men. Striving to meet ideals of strength, self-reliance, and success, men in situations of failure or uncontrollable stress may deprive themselves of a highly adaptive tool—the ability to seek support and collaboratively solve problems. Consequently, their main tactic becomes avoidance of both problems and associated negative emotions, which can exacerbate psychological issues in the long term (Wong et al., 2017). However, in our study, men acknowledged the resource of friendly support when coping with difficult situations.

The work of Huang and Li (2022) demonstrated the role of emotional intelligence as a factor in productive coping behavior. The higher the emotional intelligence in men, the more frequently they use problem-focused coping (active planning, seeking solutions), seek social support, and engage in positive reappraisal of the situation. In contrast, men with low emotional intelligence tend to exhibit maladaptive strategies such as avoidance, self-blame, and emotional ventilation (unrestrained, impulsive expression of anger or frustration) (Huang & Li, 2022).

Future research should aim to compare the manifestations of coping intelligence in men and women under standardized conditions of complex load exposure.

CRediT author statement:

Kuvaeva I.O.: conducting an experiment, writing a draft version of the manuscript.

Volkova E.V.: methodology and conceptualization, statistical data processing, editing and preparation of the final version of the manuscript

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors are solely responsible for submitting the final version of the manuscript for publication. All authors contributed to the development of the article concept and to writing the manuscript. The final version of the manuscript was approved by all authors.

Acknowledgements: The authors thank A.V. Varlamov, N.E. Volkova, and D.A. Dokuchaev for their assistance in data collection and primary processing.

Funding: This work was supported by the state assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Project No. 0138-2025-0016, “Intellectual Systems and Human Abilities”).

Conclusions

Coping intelligence reflects an individual’s ability to align load with their own capacities, drawing on individual and collective experience in overcoming stressful situations. The advantage of the method for assessing coping intelligence based on Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS of CI) lies in the objectivity and precision of its evaluations, achieved by using examples of real-life coping with psychomotor, intellectual, and communicative loads that correspond to each dimension of the rating scale (Analyzing, Transforming, Emotional response, Self-efficacy, Willingness to cooperate). The construct, convergent, and discriminant validity of the BARS of CI method, as well as the reliability of its scales, were confirmed. This instrument can be used in various fields, such as recruitment and personnel management, preventive medicine, personalized medicine, and others.

CRediT author statement:

Kuvaeva I.O.: conducting an experiment, writing a draft version of the manuscript.

Volkova E.V.: methodology and conceptualization, statistical data processing, editing and preparation of the final version of the manuscript

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors are solely responsible for submitting the final version of the manuscript for publication. All authors contributed to the development of the article concept and to writing the manuscript. The final version of the manuscript was approved by all authors.

Acknowledgements: The authors thank A.V. Varlamov, N.E. Volkova, and D.A. Dokuchaev for their assistance in data collection and primary processing.

Funding: This work was supported by the state assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Project No. 0138-2025-0016, “Intellectual Systems and Human Abilities”).

References

1. Anitei, M., & Chraif, M. (2013). Validation of coping styles and emotions undergraduate inventory on Romanian Psychology Students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 1116–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.211
2. Achenbach, T. M., & Ruffle, T. M. (2000). The Child Behavior Checklist and related forms for assessing behavioral/emotional problems and competencies. Pediatrics in Review, 21(1), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.21-8-265
3. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805534
4. Dzakwan, M. S., Sunardi, S., & Yudhana, A. (2023). Monitoring the performance of lecturers using behaviorally anchor rating scale and management by objectives method. JUITA: Jurnal Informatika, 11(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.30595/juita.v11i1.15354
5. Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Adolescent Coping Scale: Manual. ACER Press.
6. Holland, J. R., Arnold, D. Y., Hanson, H. R., Solomon, B. S., Jones, N. E., Gong, W., Lindsell, C. J., Crook, T. W., & Ciener, D. A. (2022). Reliability of the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) for assessing nontechnical skills of medical students in simulated scenarios. Medical Education Online, 27(1), Article 2070940. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2070940
7. Huang, L., & Li, W. (2022). Emotional intelligence and coping strategies among working men. Educational and Psychological Testing, 82(4),512–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12210
8. Karnia, R. (2024). Relationship between the adoption of BARS teacher evaluation model and its impact on student performance. International Journal of Psychiatry, 9(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.33140/IJP.09.03.04
9. Kirschbaum, C., Bartussek, D., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1992). Cortisol responses to psychological stress: Associations with personality traits and behavior. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 13(12), 1353–1357.
10. Kryukova, T. L. (2007). Metody izucheniya koping-povedeniya: Tri koping-shkaly [Methods of studying coping behavior: Three coping scales]. (In Russian).
11. Libin, E. (2017). Coping intelligence: Efficient life stress management. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,Article 302. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00302
12. Maddi, S. R. (2022). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of theorizing, research, and practice. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54(3), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.54.3.173
13. Malak, R., Fechner, B., Sikorska, D., Rosołek, M., Mojs, E., Samborski, W., & Baum, E. (2021). Application of the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale to evaluate the neurobehavior of preterm neonates. Brain Sciences, 11(10), Article 1285. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11101285
14. Matosas-López, L., & Cuevas-Molano, E. (2022). Assessing teaching effectiveness in blended learning methodologies: Validity and reliability of an instrument with behavioral anchored rating scales. Behavioral Sciences, 12(10),Article 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12100394
15. Nikitin, B. P. (2009). Intellektual’nye igry [Intellectual games]. Svetovid. (In Russian).
16. O’Driscoll, M. P., & Cooper, C. L. (1994). Coping with work-related stress: A critique of existing measures and proposal for an alternative methodology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 343–354.
17. O’Driscoll, M. P., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). A critical incident analysis of stress-coping behaviours at work. Stress Medicine, 12(2), 123–128.
18. Raven, J. K., Kurt, J. H., & Raven, J. (2012). Rukovodstvo k progressivnym matritsam Ravena i shkalam slovarnogo zapasa. Razdel 3: Obshchaya chast’ rukovodstva [A guide to Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 3: The general part of the manual]. In A guide to Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Kogito-Center. (Original work published 1998)
19. Rusalov, V., & Trofimova, I. (2007). Structure of temperament and its measurement: The theory and the manual of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ) (1st ed.). Psychological Services Press.
20. Rusalov, V. M., & Volkova, N. E. (2021). A test “Elementary Logical Operations”: Psychometric characteristics on the Russian sample. Natural Systems of Mind, 1(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.38098/nsom_2021_01_03_05
21. Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047060
22. Sari, P. Y. A., Satriawan, K., & Hartiati, A. (2024). Analysis of employee performance appraisal using the behaviorally anchor rating scale method at CV. BBC. American International Journal of Business Management (AIJBM), 7(8), 218–225. Retrieved from https://www.aijbm.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/T78218225.pdf
23. Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 2–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_1
24. Teplyakova, O. V., Volkova, E. V., & Kuvaeva, I. O. (2025). Kliniko-psikhologicheskaya kharakteristika patsientov s fibromialgiey: Analiz otdel’nykh sluchaev [Clinical and psychological characteristics of patients with fibromyalgia: Analysis of individual cases]. Rossiyskiy zhurnal personalizirovannoy meditsiny, 5(2),142–153. https://doi.org/10.18705/2782-3806-2025-5-2-142-153
25. Ventouris, A. (2022). The effectiveness of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales in writing skill evaluation. Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), *12*(4), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20246.83524
26. Volkova, E. V., & Kuvaeva, I. O. (2023). Koping-intellekt: Differentsionno-integrativnyy podkhod [Coping intelligence: A differential-integration approach]. Institut psikhologii RAN. (In Russian).
27. Volkova, E. V., Kuvaeva, I. O., Varlamov, A. V., & Volkova, N. E. (2025). Hormonal and immunological changes under complex stress in patients with different predominant temperamental activity. Kazan Medical Journal,106(5), 744–754. https://doi.org/10.17816/KMJ642181
28. Volkova, E. V., Kuvaeva, I. O., Varlamov, A. V., Volkova, N. E., & Dokuchaev, D. A. (2024). Genotypes of Polymorphic Loci of BDNF and COMT Genes as Factors of Individual Differences in Coping Intelligence. Experimental Psychology (Russia), 17(4), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2024170407
29. Wong, Y. J., Ho, M. R., Wang, S. Y., & Miller, I. S. K. (2017). Meta-analyses of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000176
30. Yasyukova, L. A. (2021). Test frustratsii Rozenzweiga: Diagnostika reaktsiy v konfliktnykh situatsiyakh [The Rosenzweig frustration test: Diagnostics of reactions in conflict situations]. IMATON. (In Russian).
31. Başdaş, Ö., Erdem, E., Elmalı, F., & Kurtoğlu, S. (2018). The Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale: A validity and reliability study in a Turkish sample. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 48(2), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1711-111