The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Measuring pain self-efficacy

Measuring pain self-efficacy
Measuring pain self-efficacy
Background: it is likely that people with chronic pain who have low self-efficacy have a worse prognosis. A standard, high-quality measure of self-efficacy in such populations would improve evidence, by allowing meaningful comparisons amongst subgroups and between treatments, and by facilitating pooling across studies in systematic reviews.

Objectives: to identify self-administered pain-related self-efficacy measures used in people with chronic pain and to evaluate the clinimetric evidence of the most commonly used scales systematically.

Methods: we searched 2 databases to identify self-efficacy questionnaires. We evaluated questionnaires identified against previously developed criteria for clinimetric assessment.

Results: we identified 13 relevant measurements assessing self-efficacy, and clinimetrically assessed 5 of these. These questionnaires were the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale, the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale, and the Self-Efficacy Scale. None of the questionnaires showed satisfactory results for all properties. All scales were easily scored and dimensionality was assessed in 2 of 6 of the scales. Internal consistency was acceptable for all questionnaires. There was positive evidence for construct validity in 4 of 6 of the questionnaires. None of the studies used the most up-to-date method of test-retest reliability or responsiveness. Information on interpretability of the scores was minimal in all questionnaires.

Discussion: further research should focus on assessing responsiveness and interpretability of these questionnaires. Researchers should select questionnaires that are most appropriate for their study aims and population and contribute to further validation of these scales. Future research should measure outcome expectancy alongside self-efficacy to best predict future behavior
0749-8047
461-470
Miles, Clare L.
2c3cd0e5-1aaf-46b6-8228-188c843bad4e
Pincus, Tamar
55388347-5d71-4fc0-9fd2-66fbba080e0c
Carnes, Dawn
bd9800b7-b0aa-46f0-b7f0-bcff5f8f0326
Taylor, Stephanie J.C.
62fdb6bf-40a7-4e4b-b705-a96e71dbebbe
Underwood, Martin
239a8609-e7b5-4acb-aaf9-9e7f717f0d62
Miles, Clare L.
2c3cd0e5-1aaf-46b6-8228-188c843bad4e
Pincus, Tamar
55388347-5d71-4fc0-9fd2-66fbba080e0c
Carnes, Dawn
bd9800b7-b0aa-46f0-b7f0-bcff5f8f0326
Taylor, Stephanie J.C.
62fdb6bf-40a7-4e4b-b705-a96e71dbebbe
Underwood, Martin
239a8609-e7b5-4acb-aaf9-9e7f717f0d62

Miles, Clare L., Pincus, Tamar, Carnes, Dawn, Taylor, Stephanie J.C. and Underwood, Martin (2011) Measuring pain self-efficacy. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 27 (5), 461-470. (doi:10.1097/AJP.0b013e318208c8a2). (PMID:21317778)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: it is likely that people with chronic pain who have low self-efficacy have a worse prognosis. A standard, high-quality measure of self-efficacy in such populations would improve evidence, by allowing meaningful comparisons amongst subgroups and between treatments, and by facilitating pooling across studies in systematic reviews.

Objectives: to identify self-administered pain-related self-efficacy measures used in people with chronic pain and to evaluate the clinimetric evidence of the most commonly used scales systematically.

Methods: we searched 2 databases to identify self-efficacy questionnaires. We evaluated questionnaires identified against previously developed criteria for clinimetric assessment.

Results: we identified 13 relevant measurements assessing self-efficacy, and clinimetrically assessed 5 of these. These questionnaires were the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale, the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale, and the Self-Efficacy Scale. None of the questionnaires showed satisfactory results for all properties. All scales were easily scored and dimensionality was assessed in 2 of 6 of the scales. Internal consistency was acceptable for all questionnaires. There was positive evidence for construct validity in 4 of 6 of the questionnaires. None of the studies used the most up-to-date method of test-retest reliability or responsiveness. Information on interpretability of the scores was minimal in all questionnaires.

Discussion: further research should focus on assessing responsiveness and interpretability of these questionnaires. Researchers should select questionnaires that are most appropriate for their study aims and population and contribute to further validation of these scales. Future research should measure outcome expectancy alongside self-efficacy to best predict future behavior

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2011
Organisations: Psychology

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 355339
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/355339
ISSN: 0749-8047
PURE UUID: af12242e-6e6e-459d-afae-07330e60bd89
ORCID for Tamar Pincus: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3172-5624

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 15 Aug 2013 14:21
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 04:11

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Clare L. Miles
Author: Tamar Pincus ORCID iD
Author: Dawn Carnes
Author: Stephanie J.C. Taylor
Author: Martin Underwood

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×