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。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.bjpt.2024.101150
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 ,&nbsp;Chung-Wei Christine Lin ,&nbsp;Joshua Zadro ,&nbsp;Arianne Verhagen ,&nbsp;Mark Hancock ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Chung-Wei Christine Lin ,&nbsp;Joshua Zadro ,&nbsp;Arianne Verhagen ,&nbsp;Mark Hancock ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:简明疼痛清单-干扰分量表(BPI-IS)是 BPI 评估工具的一个分量表,用于快速评估疼痛对患者功能的影响。目前还不确定该量表是否有一个或两个因子,以及在脊柱疼痛(背部和/或颈部)混合人群中是否具有可接受的临床测量特性:目的:确定 BPI-IS 在混合性脊柱疼痛人群中的临床测量特性:方法:我们通过重复测试设计、因素分析和假设检验完成了一项临床测量评估。我们使用了为随机临床试验收集的数据,其中包括因急性脊柱疼痛(背部和/或颈部)到初级保健或急诊科就诊的人群:结果:与单因素模型相比,确认性因素分析更好地支持了 BPI-IS 的双因素模型(身体干扰因素和情感干扰因素)。单因素和双因素模型都具有可接受的可靠性(内部一致性高,没有证据表明存在下限或上限效应)。这两个模型在背部或颈部疼痛人群中均未达到我们预先设定的可接受的构造(横断面)有效性和响应(纵向有效性)临界值:结论:BPI-IS 有两个因子,两个因子的可靠性都可以接受,但有效性测试没有达到我们先验的可接受性阈值(构造有效性和响应性)。BPI-IS可能不适合用于测量疼痛对背部和颈部疼痛人群功能的影响。
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
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.
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
8.80%
发文量
53
审稿时长
74 days
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.
期刊最新文献
A Brazilian Association of Women´s Health Physical Therapy (ABRAFISM) guideline on the terminology of pelvic floor muscle function and assessment Reply to letter to editor for article: ‘‘Development, reliability, and validity of the mobility assessment scale in hospitalized patients (HMob).’’ Pain revolution in the public health system: Active coping strategies for chronic pain unit Letter to the editor about the article “Development, reliability, and validity of the mobility assessment scale in hospitalized patients (HMob)” Physical therapy assistance in labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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