IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i1d10.1007_s40271-017-0269-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Pain Catastrophizing and Pain-Related Self-Efficacy: Expert Panels, Focus Groups, and Cognitive Interviews

Author

Listed:
  • Dagmar Amtmann

    (University of Washington)

  • Kendra Liljenquist

    (University of Washington)

  • Alyssa Bamer

    (University of Washington)

  • Fraser Bocell

    (University of Washington)

  • Mark Jensen

    (University of Washington)

  • Rosanne Wilson

    (University of Washington)

  • Dennis Turk

    (University of Washington)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Dagmar Amtmann & Kendra Liljenquist & Alyssa Bamer & Fraser Bocell & Mark Jensen & Rosanne Wilson & Dennis Turk, 2018. "Measuring Pain Catastrophizing and Pain-Related Self-Efficacy: Expert Panels, Focus Groups, and Cognitive Interviews," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 107-117, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0269-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0269-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0269-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-017-0269-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. María Ángeles Pastor-Mira & Sofía López-Roig & Eva Toribio & Fermín Martínez-Zaragoza & Ainara Nardi-Rodríguez & Cecilia Peñacoba, 2022. "Pain-Related Worrying and Goal Preferences Determine Walking Persistence in Women with Fibromyalgia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-13, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0269-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.