PURPOSE: Pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing are important psychosocial determinants of pain and can be therapeutic targets for chronic pain management. Advances in psychometric science have made shorter or dynamically administered instruments possible. The aim of this study was to generate and test candidate items for two new patient-reported outcome measures of pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing. METHODS: An expert panel of pain clinicians and researchers was convened to establish construct definitions of pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing and guide item development. Two patient advisors provided guidance throughout the project. Nineteen people with chronic pain participated in focus groups about their perspectives and experiences related to pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing. Twenty-two people with chronic pain participated in cognitive interviews to test proposed candidate items. RESULTS: Saturation was reached after three focus groups with no new subdomains identified by participants in the third focus group. Following cognitive interviews, five of the 48 initial pain-related self-efficacy candidate items were dropped and seven required substantial revision resulting in 43 pain-related self-efficacy candidate items. After two rounds of cognitive interviews, ten items were eliminated and ten substantially revised, resulting in a set of 30 from the initial 43 pain catastrophizing candidate items. CONCLUSION: This article summarizes results of the qualitative phase of the development of new measures of pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing. Candidate items will be field tested with a large sample of people with chronic pain and the data will be used to calibrate items to an item response theory model. Resulting item banks and short forms will be made publicly available to researchers and clinicians.
PURPOSE:Pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing are important psychosocial determinants of pain and can be therapeutic targets for chronic pain management. Advances in psychometric science have made shorter or dynamically administered instruments possible. The aim of this study was to generate and test candidate items for two new patient-reported outcome measures of pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing. METHODS: An expert panel of pain clinicians and researchers was convened to establish construct definitions of pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing and guide item development. Two patient advisors provided guidance throughout the project. Nineteen people with chronic pain participated in focus groups about their perspectives and experiences related to pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing. Twenty-two people with chronic pain participated in cognitive interviews to test proposed candidate items. RESULTS: Saturation was reached after three focus groups with no new subdomains identified by participants in the third focus group. Following cognitive interviews, five of the 48 initial pain-related self-efficacy candidate items were dropped and seven required substantial revision resulting in 43 pain-related self-efficacy candidate items. After two rounds of cognitive interviews, ten items were eliminated and ten substantially revised, resulting in a set of 30 from the initial 43 pain catastrophizing candidate items. CONCLUSION: This article summarizes results of the qualitative phase of the development of new measures of pain-related self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing. Candidate items will be field tested with a large sample of people with chronic pain and the data will be used to calibrate items to an item response theory model. Resulting item banks and short forms will be made publicly available to researchers and clinicians.
Authors: Femke Lamers; Adriaan W Hoogendoorn; Johannes H Smit; Richard van Dyck; Frans G Zitman; Willem A Nolen; Brenda W Penninx Journal: Compr Psychiatry Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 3.735
Authors: Henrica R Schiphorst Preuper; Jan H B Geertzen; Marten van Wijhe; Anne M Boonstra; Barbara H W Molmans; Pieter U Dijkstra; Michiel F Reneman Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Robert L Askew; Karon F Cook; Francis J Keefe; Cindy J Nowinski; David Cella; Dennis A Revicki; Esi M Morgan DeWitt; Kaleb Michaud; Dace L Trence; Dagmar Amtmann Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Steven Z George; Jeffrey J Parr; Margaret R Wallace; Samuel S Wu; Paul A Borsa; Yunfeng Dai; Roger B Fillingim Journal: J Pain Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Mark P Jensen; Shahin Hakimian; Dawn M Ehde; Melissa A Day; Mark W Pettet; Atsuo Yoshino; Marcia A Ciol Journal: Pain Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Marije L S Sleijser-Koehorst; Lisette Bijker; Pim Cuijpers; Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters; Michel W Coppieters Journal: Pain Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: María Ángeles Pastor-Mira; Sofía López-Roig; Eva Toribio; Fermín Martínez-Zaragoza; Ainara Nardi-Rodríguez; Cecilia Peñacoba Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anupa Pathak; Saurab Sharma; Allen W Heinemann; Paul W Stratford; Daniel Cury Ribeiro; J Haxby Abbott Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Geert Crombez; Annick L De Paepe; Elke Veirman; Christopher Eccleston; Gregory Verleysen; Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem Journal: PeerJ Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 2.984