CONTEXT: The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is a frequently used instrument designed to assess the patient-reported outcome of pain. The majority of factor analytic studies have found a two-factor (i.e., pain intensity and pain interference) structure for this instrument; however, because the BPI was developed with an a priori hypothesis of the relationship among its items, it follows that construct validity investigations should use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to establish the construct validity of the BPI using a CFA framework and demonstrate factorial invariance using a range of demographic variables. METHODS: A retrospective CFA was completed in a sample of individuals diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and cancer (n=364; 63% male; age 21-92 years, M=51.80). A baseline one-factor model was compared against two-factor and three-factor models (i.e., pain intensity, activity interference, and affective interference) that were developed based on the hypothetical design of the instrument. RESULTS: Fit indices for the three-factor model were statistically superior when compared with the one-factor model and marginally better when compared with the two-factor model. This three-factor structure was found to be invariant across disease, age, and ethnicity groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide evidence to support a three-factor representation of the BPI, and the originally hypothesized two-factor structure. Such findings will begin to provide clinical trialists, pharmaceutical sponsors, and regulators with confidence in the psychometric properties of this instrument when considering its inclusion in clinical research.
CONTEXT: The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is a frequently used instrument designed to assess the patient-reported outcome of pain. The majority of factor analytic studies have found a two-factor (i.e., pain intensity and pain interference) structure for this instrument; however, because the BPI was developed with an a priori hypothesis of the relationship among its items, it follows that construct validity investigations should use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to establish the construct validity of the BPI using a CFA framework and demonstrate factorial invariance using a range of demographic variables. METHODS: A retrospective CFA was completed in a sample of individuals diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and cancer (n=364; 63% male; age 21-92 years, M=51.80). A baseline one-factor model was compared against two-factor and three-factor models (i.e., pain intensity, activity interference, and affective interference) that were developed based on the hypothetical design of the instrument. RESULTS: Fit indices for the three-factor model were statistically superior when compared with the one-factor model and marginally better when compared with the two-factor model. This three-factor structure was found to be invariant across disease, age, and ethnicity groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide evidence to support a three-factor representation of the BPI, and the originally hypothesized two-factor structure. Such findings will begin to provide clinical trialists, pharmaceutical sponsors, and regulators with confidence in the psychometric properties of this instrument when considering its inclusion in clinical research.
Authors: Barry Rosenfeld; William Breitbart; Christopher Gibson; Michael Kramer; Alexis Tomarken; Christian Nelson; Hayley Pessin; Julie Esch; Michele Galietta; Nerina Garcia; John Brechtl; Michael Schuster Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: L Radbruch; G Loick; P Kiencke; G Lindena; R Sabatowski; S Grond; K A Lehmann; C S Cleeland Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Xavier Badia; Clemente Muriel; Alfredo Gracia; Juan Manuel Núñez-Olarte; Núria Perulero; Rafael Gálvez; Joan Carulla; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Med Clin (Barc) Date: 2003-01-25 Impact factor: 1.725
Authors: Ian F Tannock; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Jozsef Horti; Anna Pluzanska; Kim N Chi; Stephane Oudard; Christine Théodore; Nicholas D James; Ingela Turesson; Mark A Rosenthal; Mario A Eisenberger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pål Klepstad; Jon Håvard Loge; Petter C Borchgrevink; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland; Stein Kaasa Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: N B Finnerup; M P Jensen; C Norrbrink; K Trok; I L Johannesen; T S Jensen; L Werhagen Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Inderpal S Sarkaria; Nabil P Rizk; Debra A Goldman; Camelia Sima; Kay See Tan; Manjit S Bains; Prasad S Adusumilli; Daniela Molena; Matthew Bott; Thomas Atkinson; David R Jones; Valerie W Rusch Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Anas Nooh; Krista Goulding; Marc H Isler; Sophie Mottard; Annie Arteau; Norbert Dion; Robert Turcotte Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jonathan R Skirko; Kathryn T James; Louis P Garrison; Edward M Weaver Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Maria C Raven; Lina Tieu; Christopher T Lee; Claudia Ponath; David Guzman; Margot Kushel Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Kelsey R Honerlaw; Meredith E Rumble; Stephen L Rose; Christopher L Coe; Erin S Costanzo Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 5.482