Luís Filipe Azevedo1,2,3, Rute Sampaio4,5, Cláudia Camila Dias1,2, José Romão6, Laurinda Lemos7, Luís Agualusa8, Sílvia Vaz-Serra9, Teresa Patto10, Altamiro Costa-Pereira1,2,3, José Manuel Castro-Lopes3,4,5. 1. Department of Health Information and Decision Sciences (CIDES), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 2. CINTESIS - Centre for Health Technology and Services Research, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 3. National Observatory of Pain - NOPain (OBSERVDOR), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 4. Department of Experimental Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 5. IBMC - Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 6. Pain Medicine Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Porto Hospital Center (Centro Hospitalar do porto, EPE), Porto, Portugal. 7. Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Management Unit and Department of Anesthesiology, Senhora da Oliveira Hospital, Guimaraes (Centro Hospitalar Alto Ave EPE - Guimaraes), Guimaraes, Portugal. 8. Pain Medicine Unit, Pedro Hispano Hospital (Unidade Local de Saśde de Matosinhos EPE), Matosinhos, Portugal. 9. Pain Medicine Unit, General Hospital, Coimbra University Hospital Centre (Centro Hospitalar e Universitįrio de Coimbra EPE), Coimbra, Portugal. 10. Pain Medicine Unit, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital - Lisboa Central Hospital Centre (Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, EPE), Lisboa, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to perform the translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBPI) for the European Portuguese language and chronic pain population. METHODS: This is a longitudinal multicenter validation study. A Portuguese version of the PBPI (PBPI-P) was created through a process of translation, back translation, and expert panel evaluation. The PBPI-P was administered to a total of 122 patients from 13 chronic pain clinics in Portugal, at baseline and after 7 days. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed by Cronbach's alpha (α) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct (convergent and discriminant) validity was assessed based on a set of previously developed theoretical hypotheses about interrelations between the PBPI-P and other measures. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the theoretical structure of the PBPI-P. RESULTS: The internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients for each respective subscale were α = 0.620 and ICC = 0.801 for mystery; α = 0.744 and ICC = 0.841 for permanence; α = 0.778 and ICC = 0.791 for constancy; and α = 0.764 and ICC = 0.881 for self-blame. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure (performance, constancy, self-blame, and mystery) that explained 63% of the variance. The construct validity of the PBPI-P was shown to be adequate, with more than 90% of the previously defined hypotheses regarding interrelations with other measures confirmed. CONCLUSION: The PBPI-P has been shown to be adequate and to have excellent reliability, internal consistency, and validity. It may contribute to a better pain assessment and is suitable for research and clinical use.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to perform the translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBPI) for the European Portuguese language and chronic pain population. METHODS: This is a longitudinal multicenter validation study. A Portuguese version of the PBPI (PBPI-P) was created through a process of translation, back translation, and expert panel evaluation. The PBPI-P was administered to a total of 122 patients from 13 chronic pain clinics in Portugal, at baseline and after 7 days. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed by Cronbach's alpha (α) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct (convergent and discriminant) validity was assessed based on a set of previously developed theoretical hypotheses about interrelations between the PBPI-P and other measures. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the theoretical structure of the PBPI-P. RESULTS: The internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients for each respective subscale were α = 0.620 and ICC = 0.801 for mystery; α = 0.744 and ICC = 0.841 for permanence; α = 0.778 and ICC = 0.791 for constancy; and α = 0.764 and ICC = 0.881 for self-blame. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure (performance, constancy, self-blame, and mystery) that explained 63% of the variance. The construct validity of the PBPI-P was shown to be adequate, with more than 90% of the previously defined hypotheses regarding interrelations with other measures confirmed. CONCLUSION: The PBPI-P has been shown to be adequate and to have excellent reliability, internal consistency, and validity. It may contribute to a better pain assessment and is suitable for research and clinical use.