亚急性和慢性腰背痛患者疼痛自我效能问卷丹麦语版的心理计量学评估。

IF 1.5 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Scandinavian Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-10-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1515/sjpain-2024-0032
Mette Errebo, Martin Oxfeldt, Heidi Tegner, Jan Christensen
{"title":"亚急性和慢性腰背痛患者疼痛自我效能问卷丹麦语版的心理计量学评估。","authors":"Mette Errebo, Martin Oxfeldt, Heidi Tegner, Jan Christensen","doi":"10.1515/sjpain-2024-0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the level of pain self-efficacy in patients with low back pain (LBP). Although the PSEQ has been translated into Danish, its measurement properties remain unknown in patients with subacute and chronic LBP in Danish outpatient clinics. The aim of this study was to investigate the construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error of the Danish version of the PSEQ in a group of Danish patients with subacute and chronic LBP in a hospital outpatient setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with LBP referred to two Danish outpatient clinics were recruited for this study. Two days after the consultation, the participants were emailed a link to a survey that included the following outcome measures: the PSEQ, the Oswestry Disability Index, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia. Five days after completion of the survey, a new survey that included the PSEQ was sent to the participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 109 participants were included for the analysis of construct validity and internal consistency, with 94 participants included for the analysis of test-retest reliability and measurement error. Construct validity was found to be high and internal consistency was acceptable, with Cronbach's alpha = 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91-0.93). Test-retest reliability was found to be good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC<sub>2.1</sub>) of 0.89 (95% CI = 0.82-0.92). The standard error of measurement was calculated to be 4.52 and the smallest detectable change was 12.5 points.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Danish version of the PSEQ showed acceptable measurement properties in terms of construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability in a group of patients with subacute and chronic LBP. However, further studies are needed to investigate other aspects of the measurement properties.</p>","PeriodicalId":47407,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in patients with subacute and chronic low back pain.\",\"authors\":\"Mette Errebo, Martin Oxfeldt, Heidi Tegner, Jan Christensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/sjpain-2024-0032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the level of pain self-efficacy in patients with low back pain (LBP). Although the PSEQ has been translated into Danish, its measurement properties remain unknown in patients with subacute and chronic LBP in Danish outpatient clinics. The aim of this study was to investigate the construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error of the Danish version of the PSEQ in a group of Danish patients with subacute and chronic LBP in a hospital outpatient setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with LBP referred to two Danish outpatient clinics were recruited for this study. Two days after the consultation, the participants were emailed a link to a survey that included the following outcome measures: the PSEQ, the Oswestry Disability Index, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia. Five days after completion of the survey, a new survey that included the PSEQ was sent to the participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 109 participants were included for the analysis of construct validity and internal consistency, with 94 participants included for the analysis of test-retest reliability and measurement error. Construct validity was found to be high and internal consistency was acceptable, with Cronbach's alpha = 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91-0.93). Test-retest reliability was found to be good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC<sub>2.1</sub>) of 0.89 (95% CI = 0.82-0.92). The standard error of measurement was calculated to be 4.52 and the smallest detectable change was 12.5 points.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Danish version of the PSEQ showed acceptable measurement properties in terms of construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability in a group of patients with subacute and chronic LBP. However, further studies are needed to investigate other aspects of the measurement properties.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2024-0032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2024-0032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:疼痛自我效能问卷(PSEQ)是一种广泛使用的患者报告结果测量方法,旨在评估腰背痛(LBP)患者的疼痛自我效能水平。尽管 PSEQ 已被翻译成丹麦语,但其在丹麦门诊部亚急性和慢性腰背痛患者中的测量特性仍不为人所知。本研究旨在调查丹麦语版 PSEQ 的构建效度、内部一致性、重测信度以及测量误差,调查对象为在医院门诊就诊的亚急性和慢性腰痛患者:本研究招募了在丹麦两家门诊部就诊的枸杞痛患者。就诊两天后,参与者通过电子邮件收到一份调查问卷的链接,其中包括以下结果测量:PSEQ、Oswestry 残疾指数、数字疼痛评分量表和运动恐惧症坦帕量表。在完成调查五天后,又向参与者发送了一份包含 PSEQ 的新调查:共有 109 名参与者参与了结构效度和内部一致性分析,94 名参与者参与了重测信度和测量误差分析。结构效度很高,内部一致性也可以接受,Cronbach's alpha = 0.93(95% 置信区间 [CI] = 0.91-0.93)。测试-再测可靠性良好,类内相关系数(ICC2.1)为 0.89(95% 置信区间 = 0.82-0.92)。计算得出的测量标准误差为 4.52,可检测到的最小变化为 12.5 分:结论:丹麦版 PSEQ 在亚急性和慢性腰背痛患者群体中的构建效度、内部一致性和测试-再测可靠性方面显示出了可接受的测量特性。不过,还需要进一步研究测量特性的其他方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in patients with subacute and chronic low back pain.

Objective: The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the level of pain self-efficacy in patients with low back pain (LBP). Although the PSEQ has been translated into Danish, its measurement properties remain unknown in patients with subacute and chronic LBP in Danish outpatient clinics. The aim of this study was to investigate the construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error of the Danish version of the PSEQ in a group of Danish patients with subacute and chronic LBP in a hospital outpatient setting.

Methods: Patients with LBP referred to two Danish outpatient clinics were recruited for this study. Two days after the consultation, the participants were emailed a link to a survey that included the following outcome measures: the PSEQ, the Oswestry Disability Index, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia. Five days after completion of the survey, a new survey that included the PSEQ was sent to the participants.

Results: In total, 109 participants were included for the analysis of construct validity and internal consistency, with 94 participants included for the analysis of test-retest reliability and measurement error. Construct validity was found to be high and internal consistency was acceptable, with Cronbach's alpha = 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91-0.93). Test-retest reliability was found to be good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2.1) of 0.89 (95% CI = 0.82-0.92). The standard error of measurement was calculated to be 4.52 and the smallest detectable change was 12.5 points.

Conclusions: The Danish version of the PSEQ showed acceptable measurement properties in terms of construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability in a group of patients with subacute and chronic LBP. However, further studies are needed to investigate other aspects of the measurement properties.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Scandinavian Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Finnish version of the pain catastrophizing scale in chronic low back pain. To speak or not to speak? A secondary data analysis to further explore the context-insensitive avoidance scale. Intrathecal pain treatment for severe pain in patients with terminal cancer: A retrospective analysis of treatment-related complications and side effects. Psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in patients with subacute and chronic low back pain. The relationship between changes in pain intensity and functional disability in persistent disabling low back pain during a course of cognitive functional therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1