Advanced search
1 file | 386.98 KB Add to list

Let’s talk about pain catastrophizing measures : an item content analysis

(2020) PEERJ. 8.
Author
Organization
Abstract
Background. Concerns have been raised about whether self-report measures of pain catastrophizing reflect the construct as defined in the cognitive-behavioral literature. We investigated the content of these self-report measures; that is, whether items assess the construct 'pain catastrophizing' and not other theoretical constructs (i.e., related constructs or pain outcomes) using the discriminant content validity method. Method. Items (n = 58) of six pain catastrophizing measures were complemented with items (n = 34) from questionnaires measuring pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability. Via an online survey, 94 participants rated to what extent each item was relevant for assessing pain catastrophizing, defined as "to view or present pain or pain-related problems as considerably worse than they actually are" and other relevant constructs (pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability). Results. Data were analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical models. The results revealed that the items from pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability questionnaires were distinctively related to their respective constructs. This was not observed for the items from the pain catastrophizing questionnaires. The content of the pain catastrophizing measures was equally well, or even better, captured by pain-related worrying or pain-related distress. Conclusion. Based upon current findings, a recommendation may be to develop a novel pain catastrophizing questionnaire. However, we argue that pain catastrophizing cannot be assessed by self-report questionnaires. Pain catastrophizing requires contextual information, and expert judgment, which cannot be provided by self-report questionnaires. We argue for a person-centered approach, and propose to rename 'pain catastrophizing' measures in line with what is better measured: 'pain-related worrying'.
Keywords
General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, General Neuroscience, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, General Medicine, Catastrophizing, Worrying, Pain, Validity, Questionnaires, Content validity, LOW-BACK-PAIN, DISCRIMINANT CONTENT VALIDITY, COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THERAPY, COPING STRATEGIES, SCALE DEVELOPMENT, ATTENTION, STATE, QUESTIONNAIRE, DEPRESSION, REDUCTION

Downloads

  • peerj-08-8643.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 386.98 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Crombez, Geert, et al. “Let’s Talk about Pain Catastrophizing Measures : An Item Content Analysis.” PEERJ, vol. 8, 2020, doi:10.7717/peerj.8643.
APA
Crombez, G., De Paepe, A., Veirman, E., Eccleston, C., Verleysen, G., & Van Ryckeghem, D. (2020). Let’s talk about pain catastrophizing measures : an item content analysis. PEERJ, 8. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8643
Chicago author-date
Crombez, Geert, Annick De Paepe, Elke Veirman, Christopher Eccleston, Gregory Verleysen, and Dimitri Van Ryckeghem. 2020. “Let’s Talk about Pain Catastrophizing Measures : An Item Content Analysis.” PEERJ 8. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8643.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Crombez, Geert, Annick De Paepe, Elke Veirman, Christopher Eccleston, Gregory Verleysen, and Dimitri Van Ryckeghem. 2020. “Let’s Talk about Pain Catastrophizing Measures : An Item Content Analysis.” PEERJ 8. doi:10.7717/peerj.8643.
Vancouver
1.
Crombez G, De Paepe A, Veirman E, Eccleston C, Verleysen G, Van Ryckeghem D. Let’s talk about pain catastrophizing measures : an item content analysis. PEERJ. 2020;8.
IEEE
[1]
G. Crombez, A. De Paepe, E. Veirman, C. Eccleston, G. Verleysen, and D. Van Ryckeghem, “Let’s talk about pain catastrophizing measures : an item content analysis,” PEERJ, vol. 8, 2020.
@article{8695120,
  abstract     = {{Background. Concerns have been raised about whether self-report measures of pain catastrophizing reflect the construct as defined in the cognitive-behavioral literature. We investigated the content of these self-report measures; that is, whether items assess the construct 'pain catastrophizing' and not other theoretical constructs (i.e., related constructs or pain outcomes) using the discriminant content validity method.

Method. Items (n = 58) of six pain catastrophizing measures were complemented with items (n = 34) from questionnaires measuring pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability. Via an online survey, 94 participants rated to what extent each item was relevant for assessing pain catastrophizing, defined as "to view or present pain or pain-related problems as considerably worse than they actually are" and other relevant constructs (pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability).

Results. Data were analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical models. The results revealed that the items from pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability questionnaires were distinctively related to their respective constructs. This was not observed for the items from the pain catastrophizing questionnaires. The content of the pain catastrophizing measures was equally well, or even better, captured by pain-related worrying or pain-related distress.

Conclusion. Based upon current findings, a recommendation may be to develop a novel pain catastrophizing questionnaire. However, we argue that pain catastrophizing cannot be assessed by self-report questionnaires. Pain catastrophizing requires contextual information, and expert judgment, which cannot be provided by self-report questionnaires. We argue for a person-centered approach, and propose to rename 'pain catastrophizing' measures in line with what is better measured: 'pain-related worrying'.}},
  articleno    = {{e8643}},
  author       = {{Crombez, Geert and De Paepe, Annick and Veirman, Elke and Eccleston, Christopher and Verleysen, Gregory and Van Ryckeghem, Dimitri}},
  issn         = {{2167-8359}},
  journal      = {{PEERJ}},
  keywords     = {{General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Neuroscience,General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Medicine,Catastrophizing,Worrying,Pain,Validity,Questionnaires,Content validity,LOW-BACK-PAIN,DISCRIMINANT CONTENT VALIDITY,COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THERAPY,COPING STRATEGIES,SCALE DEVELOPMENT,ATTENTION,STATE,QUESTIONNAIRE,DEPRESSION,REDUCTION}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  pages        = {{24}},
  title        = {{Let’s talk about pain catastrophizing measures : an item content analysis}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8643}},
  volume       = {{8}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: