Daniel L Riddle1, Mark P Jensen. 1. Department of Physical , Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23298-0224, USA. dlriddle@vcu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A recent trend in clinical practice is to adopt short screening and diagnostic self-report instruments for patients with chronic pain. Brief two-item pain coping and beliefs measures have recently been developed and have potential to improve decision making in clinical practice. Our study examined the construct and criterion-based validity of the two-item per scale version of the coping strategies questionnaire (CSQ). DESIGN: We used data obtained on a community-based sample of 873 persons with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a large longitudinal cohort study. Persons were administered the two-item per scale version of the CSQ. The International Classification of Functioning framework was used to select a variety of criterion-based measures for comparison with the CSQ. Spearman correlations and hierarchical regression models were used to characterize construct validity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity and specificity were used to describe criterion-based validity. RESULTS: Construct validity of the CSQ scales was generally supported, with the Catastrophizing and Praying or Hoping scales demonstrating the strongest construct validity across criterion measures. Criterion-based validity for the CSQ scales varied depending on the criterion measure. The Catastrophizing and Praying or Hoping scales also had the strongest criterion-based validity, with ROC curve areas as high as 0.71 (95% confidence interval = 0.67, 0.75), P < 0.001, for identifying persons with substantial physical function deficits. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that several of the two-item CSQ scales demonstrate a modest level of construct validity along with fair criterion-based validity. The Catastrophizing and Praying or Hoping scales appear to hold the most promise for clinical applications and future longitudinal research. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVES: A recent trend in clinical practice is to adopt short screening and diagnostic self-report instruments for patients with chronic pain. Brief two-item pain coping and beliefs measures have recently been developed and have potential to improve decision making in clinical practice. Our study examined the construct and criterion-based validity of the two-item per scale version of the coping strategies questionnaire (CSQ). DESIGN: We used data obtained on a community-based sample of 873 persons with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a large longitudinal cohort study. Persons were administered the two-item per scale version of the CSQ. The International Classification of Functioning framework was used to select a variety of criterion-based measures for comparison with the CSQ. Spearman correlations and hierarchical regression models were used to characterize construct validity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity and specificity were used to describe criterion-based validity. RESULTS: Construct validity of the CSQ scales was generally supported, with the Catastrophizing and Praying or Hoping scales demonstrating the strongest construct validity across criterion measures. Criterion-based validity for the CSQ scales varied depending on the criterion measure. The Catastrophizing and Praying or Hoping scales also had the strongest criterion-based validity, with ROC curve areas as high as 0.71 (95% confidence interval = 0.67, 0.75), P < 0.001, for identifying persons with substantial physical function deficits. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that several of the two-item CSQ scales demonstrate a modest level of construct validity along with fair criterion-based validity. The Catastrophizing and Praying or Hoping scales appear to hold the most promise for clinical applications and future longitudinal research. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Alan M Jette; Stephen M Haley; Wendy J Coster; Jill T Kooyoomjian; Suzette Levenson; Tim Heeren; Jacqueline Ashba Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Manish Kothari; Ali Guermazi; Gabriele von Ingersleben; Yves Miaux; Martine Sieffert; Jon E Block; Randall Stevens; Charles G Peterfy Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephen P Sayers; Alan M Jette; Stephen M Haley; Tim C Heeren; Jack M Guralnik; Roger A Fielding Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jamie E Rayahin; Joan S Chmiel; Karen W Hayes; Orit Almagor; Laura Belisle; Alison H Chang; Kirsten Moisio; Yunhui Zhang; Leena Sharma Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Luciana G Macedo; Paul W Hodges; Geoff Bostick; Mark Hancock; Maude Laberge; Steven Hanna; Greg Spadoni; Anita Gross; Julia Schneider Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Martha Kent; Aram S Mardian; Morgan Lee Regalado-Hustead; Jenna L Gress-Smith; Lucia Ciciolla; Jinah L Kim; Brandon A Scott Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-04-12
Authors: Thorlene Egerton; Belinda J Lawford; Penny K Campbell; Melanie L Plinsinga; Libby Spiers; David A Mackenzie; Bridget Graham; Kathryn Mills; Jillian Eyles; Gabrielle Knox; Ben Metcalf; Liam R Maclachlan; Manuela Besomi; Chris Dickson; Charles Abraham; Bill Vicenzino; Paul W Hodges; David J Hunter; Kim L Bennell Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-01-17
Authors: Marla K Beauchamp; Catherine T Schmidt; Mette M Pedersen; Jonathan F Bean; Alan M Jette Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Jesse C Christensen; Andrew J Kittelson; Brian J Loyd; Michael A Himawan; Charles A Thigpen; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-10-27 Impact factor: 2.362