Department of Health Sciences, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo; Laboratory of Research on Movement and Pain (LabMovePain), Department of Health Sciences, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo.
Laboratory of Research on Movement and Pain (LabMovePain), Department of Health Sciences, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo; Department of Physical Therapy, University Federal of São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2024 Nov;105(11):2077-2088. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2024.05.014. Epub 2024 May 18.
To compare the quality of the measurement properties of Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ)-10, PSEQ-4, PSEQ-2, Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSS) long-form, and CPSS short-form (CPSS-SF) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (measurement properties).
Outpatient rehabilitation.
Participants (N=245) with nonspecific CLBP (18-60y, 63% women) were enrolled in this study.
Not applicable.
Pain self-efficacy questionnaires were administered on 3 occasions: baseline assessment, 1 week after the first assessment (reliability), and after an 8-week exercise program (responsiveness). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach α were used to assess reliability and internal consistency, respectively. Pearson correlation and confirmatory factor analyses were used to assess construct validity. The area under the curve and hypothesis testing were used to assess responsiveness.
No difference was observed for all the questionnaires regarding internal consistency (Cronbach α>.7), criterion validity (r>.88), and reliability (ICC>.7). The scales confirmed >75% of the hypotheses for the construct validity, except for CPSS-SF. PSEQ-2 did not meet the criterion for structural validity. PSEQ-10 met all the criteria for good measurement properties according to Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments.
It was not possible to calculate structural validity for PSEQ-2, CPSS-SF did not meet the criterion for suitable hypothesis testing for construct validity, and all the questionnaires did not show suitable measurement error, except for the PSEQ-10. Hence, the PSEQ-10 was the unique scale that met all the criteria for good measurement properties for assessing pain self-efficacy in CLBP.
比较慢性低背痛(CLBP)患者使用疼痛自我效能问卷(PSEQ)-10、PSEQ-4、PSEQ-2、慢性疼痛自我效能量表(CPSS)长式和 CPSS 短式(CPSS-SF)测量属性的质量。
横断面和纵向研究(测量属性)。
门诊康复。
本研究纳入了 245 名非特异性 CLBP 患者(18-60 岁,63%为女性)。
无。
在 3 个时间点(基线评估、首次评估后 1 周[可靠性]和 8 周运动方案后[反应性])进行疼痛自我效能问卷评估。使用组内相关系数(ICC)和 Cronbach α 评估可靠性和内部一致性,分别采用 Pearson 相关和验证性因子分析评估结构效度,采用曲线下面积和假设检验评估反应性。
在内部一致性(Cronbach α>.7)、效标效度(r>.88)和可靠性(ICC>.7)方面,所有问卷之间没有差异。除 CPSS-SF 外,量表均证实结构效度假设>75%。PSEQ-2 不符合结构效度标准。PSEQ-10 符合健康测量仪器选择共识标准中所有良好测量属性的标准。
无法计算 PSEQ-2 的结构效度,CPSS-SF 不符合结构效度的适当假设检验标准,所有问卷均未显示适当的测量误差,除 PSEQ-10 外。因此,PSEQ-10 是唯一符合良好测量属性标准的量表,可用于评估 CLBP 患者的疼痛自我效能。