Rosenbaum's Self-Control Schedule (SCS) has been used as a unidimensional measure of Learned Resourcefulness (LR) in previous research. In this study we clarified the factor structure of the SCS among college students (N = 583) by conducting a principal axis factor analysis with oblique (Oblimin)

rotation on the SCS. Results revealed a three-factor solution that accounted for 36.37% of the total variance, indicating the potential of the measure to assess three theoretically consistent aspects of LR, labeled as Planful Behavior, Coping Efficacy, and Affective Thought Management. Implications for college counseling practice and research are discussed

**********

Learned resourcefulness (LR) is a repertoire of well-learned behaviors and cognitive skills that individuals acquire throughout their lives to cope effectively with stressful life events and to successfully execute self-control behaviors (Rosenbaum, 1983, 1990). Individuals with effective LR skills are able to regulate (i.e., cognitively self-control) the disruptive effects of negative internal events, such as disturbing emotions like depression and anxiety, negative cognitions and self-statements, phobic reactions, and physical pain (Rosenbaum, 1990). LR does not refer to the absence of negative thoughts and feelings, but suggests that such negative thoughts and feelings can be modified and self-regulated in order to minimize their negative consequences. For example, a student who is able to delay his/her gratification when faced with a task, such as studying before going to a movie, or who can effectively solve a problem, such as review his/her lack of friendships due to being in a new college environment and then make a plan to meet others through different social events, is utilizing LR skills. The cognitive strategies and interpretations that the individual uses to help see both of these events as challenges to overcome, rather than uncontrollable stressors, reflect some of the self-control skills of LR.

Behaviors are considered LR skills if: (a) they are cued by an internal event and (b) they reduce or eliminate the interfering effects that a negative internal event has on the performance of some target behavior (Rosenbaum, 1983). The LR skill set, as defined by Rosenbaum (1990), falls along three dimensions: reformative self-control, redressive self-control, and perceived self-efficacy for coping. He described reformative self-control as the skills for effective problem solving and as strategies for postponing the need for instant gratification. Redressive self-control involves the use of positive self-instructions for thought, mood, and pain control. Finally, perceived self-efficacy for coping involves belief in the effectiveness of one's own coping skills when faced with stressful situations. Research has indicated that the self-control skills of LR can be learned and increased through conditioning, modeling, and instruction (Rosenbaum, 1983).

Learned resourcefulness has also been associated with a variety of variables and treatment outcomes. For instance, it has been associated with better coping with life stressors (Antonovsky, 1990) and better coping with traumatic experiences (Frederick, 1990). It has been found to play a positive mediating effect in drug and alcohol use (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & O'Brien, 1991), but has been less helpful in mediating smoking behavior and attempts at smoking cessation (Carey, Carey, Carnrike, & Meisler, 1990). It is also associated with better management of physical pain and chronic medical conditions (Benedito & Botella, 1991; Rosenbaum, 1990). More specific to college students, LR has been related to loneliness and self-esteem (McWhirter, 1997), and one study revealed that students with high LR experienced much less stress before and after mid-term examinations and were better able to utilize their LR skills at times of greatest stress in comparison to students with low LR (Gintner, West, & Zarski, 1989). Similarly, LR has been found to moderate the relationship between academic stress and academic performance; students with high LR do not experience the negative consequences (poor grades) of academic stress while students with low LR do receive lower grades when they experience higher academic stress (Akgun & Ciarrochi, 2003). Finally, in depression treatment, some studies have found that individuals with higher LR exhibit greater treatment recovery from severe depression (e.g., Burns, Rude, Simons, Bates, & Thase, 1994), while other studies have failed to clearly reveal a significant statistical contribution of LR in treatment success (e.g., Wetzel, Murphy, Carney, & Whitworth, 1992). Discrepant findings such as these and the potential role that LR may play in helping individuals cope and thrive in their environments, support the need to further examine this construct.

The skills of LR are most commonly assessed by the Self-Control Schedule (SCS; Rosenbaum, 1980, 1990). The SCS was develop and has been used typically as a unidimensional measure in previous research, but its utility may be enhanced if the SCS possesses subscales that measure potentially distinct aspects of learned resourcefulness. As such, clarifying the factorial structure of the SCS might help to illustrate exactly what cognitive and behavioral skills are measured by this instrument, and clarify how these skills relate to LR. Prior factor analytic studies of the SCS have yielded diverse findings about the underlying latent structure of this measure. For example, Redden, Tucker, and Young (1983) factor analyzed the SCS with a college student sample (n = 984) and identified a six-factor structure for both males and females in their study. They concluded that further work should be conducted to clarify the utility and interpretability of the SCS factor structure. In another study, Rude (1989) identified a five-factor structure for the measure with a sample of dysphoric women (n = 148). In related research, Zauszniewski (1995) factor analyzed the SCS using a sample of depressed (n = 63) and non-depressed (n = 63) male and female adults, and identified a three-factor structure for both samples (i.e., depressed, non-depressed) that were similar to the theoretical constructs of LR articulated after the development of the SCS by Rosenbaum (1990; reformative self-control, redressive self-control, and perceived self-efficacy for coping). In a more recent study, Boonpongmanee, Zauszniewski, and Boonpongmanee (2002) administered the SCS to a sample of pregnant women in Thailand (n = 180) who either had or did not have the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). They identified a three-factor structure for both samples in their study. This three-factor solution was also similar to the theoretical dimensions of LR defined by Rosenbaum (1990).

As suggested by the existing literature, a consistent factor structure of the SCS has not been identified and much of the previous work on the factor structure of the SCS has been conducted with adult clinical samples (e.g., Boonpongmanee et al., 2002; Gruber& Wildman, 1987; Rude, 1989; Zauszniewski, 1995). The factor structure of the SCS has only been factor analyzed in one study with a college student sample (Redden et al., 1983). Additionally, limitations in item construction may both account for some of these diverse findings and limit the potential of the SCS to clearly assess the different types of cognitive self-control skills associated with learned resourcefulness. Some questions, for example, may assess more than one cognitive response coping strategy, potentially adding to measurement confusion. For example, "When I do a boring job, I think about the less boring parts of the job and the reward that I will receive once I am finished," suggests potentially two different cognitive images used to cope with the stressor indicated. As such, our main purpose in the present study is to clarify the factor structure of the SCS with a large college-age sample, given the relevance of the LR construct with this age group (e.g., Gintner et al., 1989) and through our analytic strategy improve the simplicity of the SCS by eliminating potentially confusing items that relate poorly to the overall measure and to its emerging factor structure. We posed two exploratory research questions to guide our study: (1) What factors for the SCS will be identified for the mixed sex sample in the present study? and (2) How will the identified factor structure relate to the dimensions of LR defined by Rosenbaum (1990)?

Method

Participants

Initially, 636 college students from a very large southwestern university participated in the study. Data from 53 participants were eliminated from analysis due to missing data or random response patterns on the SCS. The final sample consisted of 583 college students, with 3.8% age 17,93.8% between the ages of 18-24, and 2.2% the age of 25 or older (0.2% did not indicate an age). Participants included 49.1% males and 50.0% females (0.9% failed to indicate sex). The majority of the sample was European American (88.7%), with Latino (4.8%), African American (3.1%), American Indian (1.5%), Asian American (1.0%), and "Other" (0.2%) making up the remainder of participants (0.7% did not identify ethnicity).

Instrumentation

The Self-Control Schedule (SCS), a measure of LR, was administered, along with other measures used in a larger study, as a "Personal Experience Survey." The 36-item Self-Control Schedule (Rosenbaum, 1980) was designed as a unidimensional measure to assess four types of self-control skills that make up the LR construct: the use of cognitive strategies, the use of problem-solving strategies, the ability to delay gratification, and a general belief in one's ability to regulate internal events. Rosenbaum (1980) did not factor analyze for these distinct dimensions in developing the measure. Response options on the original version of the SCS vary on a scale ranging from "-3--very uncharacteristic of me, extremely undescriptive" to "-very characteristic of me, extremely descriptive" (see Rosenbaum, 1980). For greater clarity to participants, the original scaling was modified to a "0" to "5" Likert-type response format in the present study. Scoring on the SCS is determined by adding the 36-item scores for each individual after reverse-scoring 11 negatively worded items. Therefore, higher total scores on the SCS are indicative of individuals with higher levels of LR skills. In the present study, total SCS scores ranged from 85 to 160 (M = 119). The reliability and validity of the SCS have been established in prior research; test-retest correlations over a 4-week period (r = .86) and alpha coefficients between .78 and .84 have been reported (Rosenbaum, 1980). Construct validity of the SCS has been consistently supported through validation studies with other measures (e.g., Lewinsohn & Alexander, 1990; Redden et al., 1983; Richards, 1985; Rosenbaum & Rolnick, 1983). The coefficient alpha for the entire 36-item SCS in this study was [alpha] = .80.

Procedure

The SCS and demographic questions were administered at the end of fall semester during class time to participants enrolled in a university "adjustment and survival" course designed for and commonly taken by many first and some second year university students regardless of their academic standing. Survey administration was standardized and monitored; participants were instructed not to interact during the survey and to respond honestly to items.

Results

To determine the most plausible number of components likely measured by the SCS, our analytic strategy was to initially submit the items to a principal components analysis using a varimax rotation. Three and four component solutions were identified that accounted for 32% and 36% of the cumulative variance, respectively. Because the four-component solution included one component with less than 3 items, we deemed that a three-component solution should be examined using factor analysis. The three component solution also included 6 items that either failed to load on any of the three groups of items at the .32 level or better, or that loaded on more than one component greater than .32., a standard cutoff point supported by various guides to component analysis and factor analysis (e.g., Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). These 6 items were dropped from subsequent analysis, leaving a total of 30 SCS items that we submitted to factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

We then conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal-axis factoring with oblique (Oblimin) rotation. We chose an oblique instead of orthogonal rotation, expecting that any emergent factors would be correlated given the scale's original creation as a unitary measure of LR. Besides utilizing results from the principal component analysis, multiple additional criteria were used to evaluate and determine the number of factors to retain: (a) examining the scree plot, (b) Velicer's minimum average partial (MAP) test, (c) interpretability of the factors, and (d) a minimum of three items loading on the factor (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Reise, Waller, & Comrey, 2000). We ran the first EFA on the 30 SCS items without limiting the number of factors, and examined the resulting of scree plot and number of interpretable factors (i.e., factors with at least 3 items). Both suggested a four-factor solution, while MAP criteria and the previous principal component analysis suggested retaining three factors. These numbers were used as the upper and lower limits for additional analysis. Thus, we ran the EFA for a three and four-factor solution on the 30 items and compared the results.

Based on the criteria outlined above, the three-factor solution resulted in the most interpretable and clean factor structure. The four-factor solution was difficult to interpret theoretically and included a fourth factor with only two clearly-loaded items, thus not meeting the criteria of a minimum of three items per factor. The three-factor solution met all criteria mentioned. The three-factor solution also had a total of six items that either cross-loaded on more than one factor (that is, had factor loadings of .32 or higher on more than one factor) or had unacceptably weak loadings on any one factor (that is, failed to load on any factor with a coefficient of .32 or higher). These six items were then removed and we reran a three-factor EFA with the remaining 24 items. The pattern matrix of this final principal axis factor analysis solution is presented in Table 1.

The three-factor solution of the SCS accounted for 36.37% of the total variance. The first factor, we labeled Planful Behavior, consisted of 10 items and accounted for 18.26% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 4.38. The second factor, we labeled Coping Efficacy, consisted of 8 items and accounted for 10.76% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 2.58. The third factor, we labeled Affective Thought Management, consisted of 4 items and accounted for 7.36% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 1.77. In this final analysis, two items failed to load above .32 on any of the three factors and so are not presented, leaving a final total of 22 SCS items that clearly loaded onto one of the three factors in this three-factor solution. Item loadings, means, and SDs for each item by each of the three factors are presented in Table 1. Factor inter-correlations of r =. 18 (Factors 1 and 2), r = -.39 (Factors 1 and 3), and r = -.23 (Factors 2 and 3) also supported factor distinctiveness.

Discussion

The results of the present study provide support that the SCS is an adequate multidimensional measure of LR in a young college student sample. Similar to prior research with adult clinical samples we found a three-factor structure for the SCS (Zauszniewski, 1995) that suggest three SCS subscales that measure constructs similar to the three dimensions of LR defined by Rosenbaum (1990). So, the findings of this study suggests that, with additional confirmation, the SCS may be utilized with a reduced number of items as a three-factor measure that is both interpretable and conceptually consistent with LR theory.

As the first dimension of LR, Rosenbaum (1990) defined Reformative Self-Control as including the skills needed to effectively problem-solve and delay gratification. Based on the results in the present study, Factor 1 is most related to the construct of reformative self-control. For example, Factor 1, which we labeled Planful Behavior, consists of items that utilize problem-solving approaches to situations such as item 11, "When I plan to work, I remove all things that are not relevant to my work." This factor also includes items that utilize impulse control techniques to situations, such as appears in item 27, "Even when I am terribly angry at somebody, I consider my actions very carefully." The 10 items of this factor appear to clearly fit within Rosenbaum's definition of reformative self-control.

Reformative self-control can also be conceptualized as a person's attempt to integrate previously existing skills and newly acquired skills in order to cope with a new stressor (Rosenbaum, 1990). Thus, a person's normal behavior patterns are challenged and new behaviors must be used in order to cope with encountered stressors. It could be argued that traditional-age college student populations are at a developmental point in which the skills of reformative self-control are very important. For example, as college students encounter novel stressors (e.g., new testing situations) they may find that previously learned behavioral repertoires need to be integrated with new behaviors (e.g., anxiety reducing exercises) in order to successfully cope with these new situations. College students are constantly surrounded by new situations that challenge them to learn new behaviors and have many opportunities to improve their skills in reformative self-control. As such, it may be very important for college students to successfully master skills related to reformative self-control to better cope with stresses related to college.

As a second dimension of LR, the definition for Redressive Self-Control includes the positive use of self-instructions to manage negative thoughts, moods, and pain control (Rosenbaum, 1990). In the present study, Factor 3, Affective Thought Management, is most related to the construct of redressive self-control. This factor includes items that refer to the use of strategies to manage unpleasant thoughts, such as in item 5, "When I am feeling depressed I try to think about pleasant things," as well as items related to strategies for managing affect, such as item 15, "When I am in a low mood, I try to act cheerfully so my mood will change." The content of the four Factor 3 items clearly fall within Rosenbaum's definitions of redressive self-control.

Redressive self-control can further be thought of as the way in which a person attempts to regain control from some stressor that caused imbalance in normal functioning (Rosenbaum, 1990). For example, a person engaged in maintaining homeostasis of normal functioning is engaged in redressive self-control. This skill set has been largely observed in older populations with more and greatly diverse life experience (see Rosenbaum, 1990). However, the skills of redressive self-control are also important for college students during periods of major transition, such as arriving on campus for the first time, changing living environments, and being challenged with new academic and social demands without commensurate and familiar supports. Enhancing redressive self-control skills among younger college students, such as the principally first- and second-year students who participated in this study, may be particularly important for helping college students adjust to their college environment.

The third dimension of learned resourcefulness is Perceived Self-Efficacy for Coping, which refers to the perceived abilities one has to cope with stressful behaviors and situations in their lives (Rosenbaum, 1990). For the present study, Factor 2, which we labeled Coping Efficacy, is most related to the definition of perceived self-efficacy for coping. Factor 2 includes eight items that test the individual's ability to manage negative or unpleasant thoughts, and as such are very similar to Factor 1, such as item 35, "Quite often I cannot overcome unpleasant thoughts that bother me." But this factor also includes items that test the individual's ability to deal with problem behaviors and to deal effectively on their own with such problems, such as is reflected in the reverse-worded item #19, "I need outside help to get rid of some of my bad habits". The content of the items that load on this factor are reflective of Rosenbaum's definition of perceived self-efficacy for coping, which can be conceptualized as the general belief in one's ability to self-regulate internal processes, particularly when faced with considerable stressors (Rosenbaum, 1990). In general, a person's beliefs about his or her ability to cope with stressors are influenced by many factors, including past experiences and observations of others (Bandura, 1977). Past research has found relationships between students' coping styles and their adjustment to college (e.g., Leong, Bonz, & Zachar, 1997). As such, students with higher levels of perceived self-efficacy for coping are more likely to successfully cope with stressful behaviors or situations in more constructive ways.

Implications for Practice. While we have identified some suggestions for interventions with college and university students in previous paragraphs, additional practice suggestions may include the following. Given the differences between the types of LR defined by Rosenbaum, the SCS could be used to help identify the specific types of cognitive skills and skill limitations present in college students that can then be applied to providing specific skill training matched to specific skill deficiency. For instance, academic survival courses currently taught at most major universities could utilize the three subscale SCS as part of a battery of measures to identify strengths along with assessing student weaknesses (such as concentration difficulties during studying). College counselors could similarly use the SCS to help college students develop individualized plans to help bolster their skills in managing problem performance areas as well as their own internal stress reactions (Akgun & Ciarrochi, 2003). This approach would be particularly helpful for students who experience high stress related to their academic performance. The SCS could also help the college counselor determine the self-control skills and limitations of their student clients, and be used to develop treatment plans to help enhance the cognitive and behavioral skills in a manner that is commensurate with client problem-solving style.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research. There are some limitations of the present study related to the factor structure of the SCS. First, the overall variance accounted for was not particularly high. This may be due to the fact that some questions in the SCS tend to be longer than optimal and reflect both cognitive and behavioral skills, sometimes within the same question. As such, the same question may refer to distinct skills and as such is less discriminating. Because factor analysis attempts to determine how questions mathematically coalesce, these broader questions, as well as the fact that SCS questions assess many different behaviors to which self-control skills are applied (e.g., smoking, hunger, pain management, etc.) limit the ability of factor analysis to account for larger portions of variance within a fewer number of factors. But the results of factor analysis with more factors, while improving overall variance accounted for, results in factors that are (a) not interpretable, (b) have fewer than a minimum of three items, and (c) posses items that contribute to multiple factors, and thus do not help distinguish variance that is unique to a specific factor. The factor analysis results of this study improve on past analyses by reducing the number of items that did not clearly support underlying constructs (that is, loaded on more than one factor or failed to load on any emerging factor). By dropping items as standard practice that do not meet standard criteria as contributing to a distinct factor we also necessarily loose some variance accounted for by these specific items. Continued refinement and revision of the 22-item version of the SCS with college students, and confirming such revisions and the presence of distinct factors by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis on a different college student sample, will likely increase the total amount of variance accounted for by the SCS. Continuing to reduce the number of items on the SCS to create a short-form version of the SCS (e.g., by using the top 4-5 items in each subscale/factor and validate the psychometric properties of such a short-form) could also improve the utility of this measure for assessing different types of cognitive coping skills among college students.

Because a large percentage of our sample (88.7%) consisted of individuals of European American background, future research should also explore the constructs examined here with more ethnically and culturally diverse participants. The cognitive self-control strategies inherent in many of the questions reflect a fairly Western, instrumental style in solving problems and managing internal distress. Since the SCS was originally developed in Israel, its universal applicability should be examined more thoroughly. The development of self-control skills may vary greatly based on factors such as culture, acculturation, and ethnic identity. At present, we are aware of one study that has examined the use of the SCS in a non-western sample (Boonpongmanee, et al., 2002). More studies are needed to validate the SCS for use with other cultural and national groups as well as among ethnically and culturally diverse college students.

The main purpose of the present study was to conduct a factor analysis of the SCS to identify a factor structure of the measure for male and female college students, in part because previous factor analytic studies with the SCS have not yielded consistent factor structures (e.g., Redden et al., 1983; Rude, 1989; Zauszniewski, 1995). The results of the present study provide support that the SCS is an adequate multidimensional measure of LR in a young college student sample. The three-factor structure we identified relates to the three dimensions of LR suggested by the developer of the SCS (Rosenbaum, 1990). An additional goal of this study was to reduce the number of items on the measure based on item-factor loadings and item contribution to the resulting factor structure. Future research with the SCS is recommended in order to refine the SCS as a multidimensional measure of cognitive and behavioral self-control skills of LR, conduct confirmatory factor analysis on another college-age sample, and to use this measure, along with other instruments, to evaluate the outcome of interventions designed to help college students develop improved coping, thought management, and behavioral management skills that are associated with college success and healthier behavioral choices.

References

Akgun, S., & Ciarrochi, J. (2003). Learned Resourcefulness moderates the relationships between academic stress and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 23, 287-294.

Antonovsky, A. (1990). Pathways leading to successful coping and health. In M. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Learned resourcefulness: On coping skills', self-control, and adaptive behavior (pp. 31-63). New York: Springer.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Benedito, C., & Botella, C. (1991). Diferencias individuales y prediccion en el asma bronquial (Individual differences in predicting bronchial asthma). Boletin de Psicologia, 32, 21-38.

Boonpongmanee, C., Zauszniewski, J., & Boonpongmanee, S. (2002). Psychometric properties of the Self-Control Schedule: Thai version. Research in Nursing & Health, 25, 471-478.

Burns, D. D., Rude, S., Simons, A. D., Bates, M. A., & Thase, M. E. (1994). Does learned resourcefulness predict the response to cognitive behavioral therapy for depression? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 277-291.

Carey, M. P., Carey, K. B., Carnrike, C. L., & Meisler, A. W. (1990). Learned resourcefulness, drinking, and smoking in young adults. Journal of Psychology, 124, 391-395.

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10& n=7

Flett, G., Hewitt, P., Blankstein, K., & O'Brien, S. (1991). Perfectionism and learned resourcefulness in depression and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 61-68.

Frederick, C. J. (1990). Resourcefulness in coping with severe trauma: The case of the hostage. In M. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Learned resourcefulness: On coping skills, self-control, and adaptive behavior (pp. 218-228). New York: Springer.

Gintner, F. F., West, J. D., & Zarski, J. J. (1989). Learned resourcefulness and situation-specific coping with stress. Journal of Psychology, 123, 295-304.

Gruber, A. & Wildman, B. (1987). The impact of dysmenorrhea on daily activities. Behavior Research and Therapy, 25, 123-128.

Leong, F. T., Bonz, M. H., & Zachar, P. (1997). Coping styles as predictors of college adjustment among freshman. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 10, 211-220.

Lewinsohn, P., & Alexander, C. (1990). Learned resourcefulness and depression. In M. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Learned resourcefulness: On coping skills, self-control, and adaptive behavior (pp. 202-217). New York: Springer.

McWhirter, B. T. (1997). Loneliness, learned resourcefulness, and self-esteem in college students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75, 460-469.

Redden, E. M., Tucker, R. K., & Young, L. (1983). Psychometric properties of the Rosenbaum schedule for assessing self-control. Psychological Records, 33, 77-86.

Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12, 287-297.

Richards, P. S. (1985). Construct validation of the Self-Control Schedule. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 208-218.

Rosenbaum, M. (1980). A schedule for assessing self-control behaviors: Preliminary findings. Behavior Therapy, 11, 109-121.

Rosenbaum, M. (1983). Learned resourcefulness as a behavioral repertoire for the self-regulation of internal events: Issues and speculations. In M. Rosenbaum, C. M. Frank, & Y. Jaffe (Eds.), Perspectives on behavior therapy in the eighties (pp. 54-73). New York: Springer.

Rosenbaum, M. (Ed.). (1990). Learned resourcefulness: On coping skills, self-control, and adaptive behavior. New York: Springer.

Rosenbaum, M., & Rolnick, A. (1983). Self-control behaviors and coping with seasickness. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 93-98.

Rude, S.S. (1989). Dimensions of self-control in a sample of depressed women. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 363-375.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wetzel, R., Murphy, G., Carney, R., & Whitworth, P. (1992). Prescribing therapy for depression: The role of learned resourcefulness: a failure to replicate. Psychological Reports, 70, 803-807.

Zauszniewski, J. A. (1995). Theoretical and empirical considerations of resourcefulness. Image--The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 27, 177-180.

BENEDICT T. McWHIRTER

Counseling Psychology Program

University of Oregon

JASON J. BURROW-SANCHEZ

Department of Educational Psychology

University of Utah

KATESY C. TOWNSEND

Bureau of Study Counsel

Harvard University

Table 1
Factorial solution for the Self-Control Schedule (N = 583).

Item # and Item                                         Mean      sd

Factor 1: Planful Behavior
28.   When facing a decision, I find out                 3.33     1.17
      alternatives instead of deciding
      spontaneously. *
32.   I usually plan my work when faced with a           3.59     1.07
      number of things to do.
34.   If I find it difficult to concentrate on a         2.98     1.10
      certain job, I divide the job into smaller
      segments.
22.   First of all I prefer to finish a job I            2.96     1.25
      have to do and then start doing things I
      really like. *
26.   When I feel that I am too impulsive, I tell        3.14     1.23
      myself "stop and think before you do
      anything."
11.   When I plan to work, I remove all the              2.74     1.21
      things that are not relevant to my work.
10.   When difficulties concentrating on reading,        2.95     1.18
      I look for ways to increase
      concentration. *
33.   When short of money, I decide to record            2.74     1.51
      expenses to plan carefully for the
      future. *
27.   Even when I am terribly angry at somebody.         3.21     1.33
      I consider my actions very carefully.
7.    When I am faced with a difficult decision.         3.47     1.06
      I try to approach its solution in a
      systematic way.

Eigenvalue = 4.38; Total Variance Explained = 18.26%

Factor 2: Coping Efficacy
35.   Quite often I cannot overcome unpleasant           1.55     0.98
      thoughts that bother me.
21.   Although it makes me feel bad, I cannot            1.38     1.05
      avoid thinking about future catastrophes. *
19.   I need outside help to get rid of some of          1.33     1.02
      my bad habits.
04.   I often find it difficult to overcome              1.35     1.03
      feelings of nervousness without any outside
      help. *
06.   I cannot avoid thinking about mistakes I           1.43     0.92
      have made in the past.
14.   If I smoked two packs of cigarettes a day,         1.12     1.08
      I would probably need outside help to
      stop. *
9.    When facing a difficult decision, I                1.49     0.99
      postpone decision even if all facts are at
      my disposal. *
16.   If I had the pills with me, I would take a         0.74     1.02
      tranquilizer whenever I felt tense and
      nervous.

Eigenvalue = 2.58; Total Variance Explained = 10.76%

Factor 3: Affective Thought Management
13.   When an unpleasant thought is bothering me.        3.29     1.16
      I try to think about something pleasant.
5.    When I am feeling depressed, I try to think        3.21     1.20
      about pleasant things.
15.   When I am in a low mood, I try to act              2.83     1.29
      cheerfully so my mood will change.
17.   When I am depressed, I try to keep myself          3.27     1.24
      busy with things that I like.

Eigenvalue = 1.77; Total Variance Explained = 7.36%

Cumulative Percent of Explained Variance = 36.37%

Item # and Item                                          Item-Factor

                                                          1        2

Factor 1: Planful Behavior
28.   When facing a decision, I find out                 0.64    -0.04
      alternatives instead of deciding
      spontaneously. *
32.   I usually plan my work when faced with a           0.58    -0.04
      number of things to do.
34.   If I find it difficult to concentrate on a         0.57    -0.03
      certain job, I divide the job into smaller
      segments.
22.   First of all I prefer to finish a job I            0.52    -0.02
      have to do and then start doing things I
      really like. *
26.   When I feel that I am too impulsive, I tell        0.46    -0.05
      myself "stop and think before you do
      anything."
11.   When I plan to work, I remove all the              0.44     0.01
      things that are not relevant to my work.
10.   When difficulties concentrating on reading,        0.42     0.04
      I look for ways to increase
      concentration. *
33.   When short of money, I decide to record            0.42     0.04
      expenses to plan carefully for the
      future. *
27.   Even when I am terribly angry at somebody.         0.41     0.04
      I consider my actions very carefully.
7.    When I am faced with a difficult decision.         0.37     0.16
      I try to approach its solution in a
      systematic way.

Eigenvalue = 4.38; Total Variance Explained = 18.26%

Factor 2: Coping Efficacy
35.   Quite often I cannot overcome unpleasant           -0.1     0.62
      thoughts that bother me.
21.   Although it makes me feel bad, I cannot            -0.1     0.60
      avoid thinking about future catastrophes. *
19.   I need outside help to get rid of some of          0.10     0.57
      my bad habits.
04.   I often find it difficult to overcome              0.05     0.56
      feelings of nervousness without any outside
      help. *
06.   I cannot avoid thinking about mistakes I            -0      0.50
      have made in the past.
14.   If I smoked two packs of cigarettes a day,          -0      0.41
      I would probably need outside help to
      stop. *
9.    When facing a difficult decision, I                0.10     0.37
      postpone decision even if all facts are at
      my disposal. *
16.   If I had the pills with me, I would take a         0.00     0.37
      tranquilizer whenever I felt tense and
      nervous.

Eigenvalue = 2.58; Total Variance Explained = 10.76%

Factor 3: Affective Thought Management
13.   When an unpleasant thought is bothering me.        0.03     0.03
      I try to think about something pleasant.
5.    When I am feeling depressed, I try to think         -0      0.12
      about pleasant things.
15.   When I am in a low mood, I try to act              0.02    -0.07
      cheerfully so my mood will change.
17.   When I am depressed, I try to keep myself          0.07    -0.05
      busy with things that I like.

Eigenvalue = 1.77; Total Variance Explained = 7.36%

Cumulative Percent of Explained Variance = 36.37%

Item # and Item                                        Loadings

                                                          3

Factor 1: Planful Behavior
28.   When facing a decision, I find out                 0.11
      alternatives instead of deciding
      spontaneously. *
32.   I usually plan my work when faced with a           0.02
      number of things to do.
34.   If I find it difficult to concentrate on a        -0.04
      certain job, I divide the job into smaller
      segments.
22.   First of all I prefer to finish a job I            0.09
      have to do and then start doing things I
      really like. *
26.   When I feel that I am too impulsive, I tell       -0.09
      myself "stop and think before you do
      anything."
11.   When I plan to work, I remove all the             -0.03
      things that are not relevant to my work.
10.   When difficulties concentrating on reading,       -0.13
      I look for ways to increase
      concentration. *
33.   When short of money, I decide to record           -0.02
      expenses to plan carefully for the
      future. *
27.   Even when I am terribly angry at somebody.        -0.07
      I consider my actions very carefully.
7.    When I am faced with a difficult decision.        -0.09
      I try to approach its solution in a
      systematic way.

Eigenvalue = 4.38; Total Variance Explained = 18.26%

Factor 2: Coping Efficacy
35.   Quite often I cannot overcome unpleasant          -0.16
      thoughts that bother me.
21.   Although it makes me feel bad, I cannot           -0.06
      avoid thinking about future catastrophes. *
19.   I need outside help to get rid of some of          0.08
      my bad habits.
04.   I often find it difficult to overcome              0.00
      feelings of nervousness without any outside
      help. *
06.   I cannot avoid thinking about mistakes I          -0.03
      have made in the past.
14.   If I smoked two packs of cigarettes a day,         0.06
      I would probably need outside help to
      stop. *
9.    When facing a difficult decision, I                0.10
      postpone decision even if all facts are at
      my disposal. *
16.   If I had the pills with me, I would take a        -0.11
      tranquilizer whenever I felt tense and
      nervous.

Eigenvalue = 2.58; Total Variance Explained = 10.76%

Factor 3: Affective Thought Management
13.   When an unpleasant thought is bothering me.       -0.69
      I try to think about something pleasant.
5.    When I am feeling depressed, I try to think       -0.65
      about pleasant things.
15.   When I am in a low mood, I try to act             -0.61
      cheerfully so my mood will change.
17.   When I am depressed, I try to keep myself         -0.60
      busy with things that I like.

Eigenvalue = 1.77; Total Variance Explained = 7.36%

Cumulative Percent of Explained Variance = 36.37%