Walton David M, Putos Joseph, Beattie Tyler, MacDermid Joy C
School of Physical Therapy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
School of Physical Therapy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Scand J Pain. 2016 Jul;12:110-116. doi: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.05.002. Epub 2016 May 25.
The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-SF) is a widely-used generic pain interference scale, however its factor structure remains unclear. An expanded 10-item version of the Interference subscale has been proposed, but the additional value of the 3 extra items has not been rigorously evaluated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and contrast the factorial and concurrent validity of the original 7-item and 10-item versions of the BPI-SF in a large heterogeneous sample of patients with chronic pain.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on independent subsets of the sample, and concurrent correlations with scales capturing similar constructs were evaluated.
Two independent exploratory factor analyses (n=500 each) supported a single interference factor in both the 7- and 10-item versions, while confirmatory factor analysis (N=1000) suggested that a 2-factor structure (Physical and Affective) provided better fit. A 3-factor model, where sleep interference was the third factor, improved in model fit further. There was no significant difference in model fit between the 7- and 10-item versions. Concurrent associations with measures of general health, pain intensity and pain-related cognitions were all in the anticipated direction and magnitude and were not different by version of the BPI-SF.
The addition of 3 extra items to the original 7-item Interference subscale of the BPI-SF did not improve psychometric properties. The combined results lead us to endorse a 3-factor structure (Physical, Affective, and Sleep Interference) as the more statistically and conceptually sound option.
简明疼痛问卷(BPI-SF)是一种广泛使用的通用疼痛干扰量表,但其因子结构仍不明确。有人提出了一个扩展的包含10个条目的干扰分量表版本,但新增的3个条目的附加价值尚未得到严格评估。本研究的目的是在一个大型异质性慢性疼痛患者样本中评估和对比BPI-SF原始的7个条目版本和10个条目版本的因子效度和同时效度。
对样本的独立子集进行探索性和验证性因子分析,并评估与捕捉相似结构的量表的同时相关性。
两项独立的探索性因子分析(各n = 500)均支持7个条目版本和10个条目版本中的单一干扰因子,而验证性因子分析(N = 1000)表明,两因子结构(身体和情感)拟合效果更好。一个三因子模型(其中睡眠干扰为第三个因子)进一步改善了模型拟合。7个条目版本和10个条目版本在模型拟合上没有显著差异。与一般健康、疼痛强度和疼痛相关认知测量的同时关联均在预期的方向和程度上,且不因BPI-SF版本而异。
在BPI-SF原始的7个条目干扰分量表中增加3个额外条目并未改善心理测量特性。综合结果使我们认可三因子结构(身体、情感和睡眠干扰)是在统计学和概念上更合理的选择。