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
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
2011
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), .
(doi:10.1097/AJP.0b013e318208c8a2).
(PMID:21317778)
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
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
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