Caitlin M.P. Jones , Chung-Wei Christine Lin , Joshua Zadro , Arianne Verhagen , Mark Hancock , Raymond Ostelo
{"title":"在急性背部和颈部疼痛人群中,简短疼痛量表-干扰分量表的可靠性可以接受,但有效性值得怀疑。","authors":"Caitlin M.P. Jones , Chung-Wei Christine Lin , Joshua Zadro , Arianne Verhagen , Mark Hancock , Raymond Ostelo","doi":"10.1016/j.bjpt.2024.101150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Brief Pain Inventory—Interference Subscale (BPI-IS) is a subscale of the BPI assessment tool developed to rapidly assess the impact of a person's pain on their function. It is uncertain whether it has one or two factors, and whether it has acceptable clinimetric properties in a mixed spinal pain (back and/or neck) population.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To determine the clinimetric properties of the BPI-IS in a population with mixed spinal pain.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We completed a clinimetric evaluation with a test-retest design, factor analysis, and hypothesis testing. We used data collected for a randomised clinical trial including a population presenting to primary care or emergency departments with acute spinal pain (back and/or neck).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Confirmatory factor analysis better supported the two-factor model of the BPI-IS (physical interference factor and affective interference factor) as compared to the one-factor model. Both one and two-factor models had acceptable reliability (high internal consistency and no evidence of floor or ceiling effects). Both models failed to reach our a-priori thresholds for acceptable construct (cross sectional) validity, and responsiveness (longitudinal validity) in either back or neck pain populations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The BPI-IS has two factors and both have acceptable reliability, but tests for validity did not reach our a priori thresholds for acceptability (construct validity and responsiveness). The BPI-IS may not be suitable to measure the impact of pain on function in back and neck pain populations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49621,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy","volume":"28 6","pages":"Article 101150"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The brief pain inventory—Interference Subscale has acceptable reliability but questionable validity in acute back and neck pain populations\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin M.P. Jones , Chung-Wei Christine Lin , Joshua Zadro , Arianne Verhagen , Mark Hancock , Raymond Ostelo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bjpt.2024.101150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Brief Pain Inventory—Interference Subscale (BPI-IS) is a subscale of the BPI assessment tool developed to rapidly assess the impact of a person's pain on their function. It is uncertain whether it has one or two factors, and whether it has acceptable clinimetric properties in a mixed spinal pain (back and/or neck) population.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To determine the clinimetric properties of the BPI-IS in a population with mixed spinal pain.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We completed a clinimetric evaluation with a test-retest design, factor analysis, and hypothesis testing. We used data collected for a randomised clinical trial including a population presenting to primary care or emergency departments with acute spinal pain (back and/or neck).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Confirmatory factor analysis better supported the two-factor model of the BPI-IS (physical interference factor and affective interference factor) as compared to the one-factor model. Both one and two-factor models had acceptable reliability (high internal consistency and no evidence of floor or ceiling effects). Both models failed to reach our a-priori thresholds for acceptable construct (cross sectional) validity, and responsiveness (longitudinal validity) in either back or neck pain populations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The BPI-IS has two factors and both have acceptable reliability, but tests for validity did not reach our a priori thresholds for acceptability (construct validity and responsiveness). The BPI-IS may not be suitable to measure the impact of pain on function in back and neck pain populations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49621,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":\"28 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 101150\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413355524005604\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413355524005604","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The brief pain inventory—Interference Subscale has acceptable reliability but questionable validity in acute back and neck pain populations
Background
The Brief Pain Inventory—Interference Subscale (BPI-IS) is a subscale of the BPI assessment tool developed to rapidly assess the impact of a person's pain on their function. It is uncertain whether it has one or two factors, and whether it has acceptable clinimetric properties in a mixed spinal pain (back and/or neck) population.
Objectives
To determine the clinimetric properties of the BPI-IS in a population with mixed spinal pain.
Methods
We completed a clinimetric evaluation with a test-retest design, factor analysis, and hypothesis testing. We used data collected for a randomised clinical trial including a population presenting to primary care or emergency departments with acute spinal pain (back and/or neck).
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis better supported the two-factor model of the BPI-IS (physical interference factor and affective interference factor) as compared to the one-factor model. Both one and two-factor models had acceptable reliability (high internal consistency and no evidence of floor or ceiling effects). Both models failed to reach our a-priori thresholds for acceptable construct (cross sectional) validity, and responsiveness (longitudinal validity) in either back or neck pain populations.
Conclusion
The BPI-IS has two factors and both have acceptable reliability, but tests for validity did not reach our a priori thresholds for acceptability (construct validity and responsiveness). The BPI-IS may not be suitable to measure the impact of pain on function in back and neck pain populations.
期刊介绍:
The Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (BJPT) is the official publication of the Brazilian Society of Physical Therapy Research and Graduate Studies (ABRAPG-Ft). It publishes original research articles on topics related to the areas of physical therapy and rehabilitation sciences, including clinical, basic or applied studies on the assessment, prevention, and treatment of movement disorders.