Truchon Manon, Côté Denis, Irachabal Sandrine
Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration, 525, boul. Hamel, Québec, QC, G1M 2S8, Canada.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006 Feb 14;7:13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-13.
Coping strategies are among the psychosocial factors hypothesized to contribute to the development of chronic musculoskeletal disability. The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) was developed to assess eight behavioral coping strategies targeted in multidisciplinary pain treatment (Guarding, Resting, Asking for Assistance, Task Persistence, Relaxation, Exercise/Stretch, Coping Self-Statements and Seeking Social Support). The present study had two objectives. First, it aimed at measuring the internal consistency and the construct validity of the French version of the CPCI. Second, it aimed to verify if, as suggested by the CPCI authors, the scales of this instrument can be grouped according to the following coping families: Illness-focused coping and Wellness-focused coping.
The CPCI was translated into French with the forward and backward translation procedure. To evaluate internal consistency, Cronbach's alphas were computed. Construct validity of the inventory was estimated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in two samples: a group of 439 Quebecois workers on sick leave in the sub-acute stage of low back pain (less than 84 days after the work accident) and a group of 388 French chronic pain patients seen in a pain clinic. A CFA was also performed to evaluate if the CPCI scales were grouped into two coping families (i.e. Wellness-focused and Illness-focused coping).
The French version of the CPCI had adequate internal consistency in both samples. The CFA confirmed the eight-scale structure of the CPCI. A series of second-order CFA confirmed the composition of the Illness-focused family of coping (Guarding, Resting and Asking for Assistance). However, the composition of the Wellness-focused family of coping (Relaxation, Exercise/Stretch, Coping Self-Statements and Seeking Social Support) was different than the one proposed by the authors of the CPCI. Also, a positive correlation was observed between Illness and Wellness coping families.
The present study indicates that the internal consistency and construct validity of the French version of the CPCI were adequate, but the grouping and labeling of the CPCI families of coping are debatable and deserve further analysis in the context of musculoskeletal and pain rehabilitation.
应对策略是被假定为导致慢性肌肉骨骼残疾发展的心理社会因素之一。慢性疼痛应对量表（CPCI）旨在评估多学科疼痛治疗中针对的八种行为应对策略（防护、休息、寻求帮助、任务坚持、放松、锻炼/伸展、应对自我陈述和寻求社会支持）。本研究有两个目标。首先，旨在测量CPCI法语版的内部一致性和结构效度。其次，旨在验证该工具的量表是否能如CPCI作者所建议的那样，根据以下应对类别进行分组：以疾病为中心的应对和以健康为中心的应对。
采用正向和反向翻译程序将CPCI翻译成法语。为评估内部一致性，计算了克朗巴哈系数。通过验证性因子分析（CFA）在两个样本中估计量表的结构效度：一组439名处于腰痛亚急性期（工伤后不到84天）病假的魁北克工人，以及一组在疼痛诊所就诊的388名法国慢性疼痛患者。还进行了CFA以评估CPCI量表是否能分为两个应对类别（即以健康为中心和以疾病为中心的应对）。
CPCI法语版在两个样本中都有足够的内部一致性。CFA证实了CPCI的八分量表结构。一系列二阶CFA证实了以疾病为中心的应对类别（防护、休息和寻求帮助）的组成。然而，以健康为中心的应对类别（放松、锻炼/伸展、应对自我陈述和寻求社会支持）的组成与CPCI作者提出的不同。此外，在以疾病为中心和以健康为中心的应对类别之间观察到正相关。
本研究表明，CPCI法语版的内部一致性和结构效度是足够的，但CPCI应对类别的分组和标签存在争议，在肌肉骨骼和疼痛康复背景下值得进一步分析。
