• Pain Med · Feb 2013

    Construct and criterion-based validity of brief pain coping scales in persons with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain.

    • Daniel L Riddle and Mark P Jensen.
    • Department of Physical , Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23298-0224, USA. dlriddle@vcu.edu
    • Pain Med. 2013 Feb 1; 14 (2): 265-75.

    ObjectivesA recent trend in clinical practice is to adopt short screening and diagnostic self-report instruments for patients with chronic pain. Brief two-item pain coping and beliefs measures have recently been developed and have potential to improve decision making in clinical practice. Our study examined the construct and criterion-based validity of the two-item per scale version of the coping strategies questionnaire (CSQ).DesignWe used data obtained on a community-based sample of 873 persons with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a large longitudinal cohort study. Persons were administered the two-item per scale version of the CSQ. The International Classification of Functioning framework was used to select a variety of criterion-based measures for comparison with the CSQ. Spearman correlations and hierarchical regression models were used to characterize construct validity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity and specificity were used to describe criterion-based validity.ResultsConstruct validity of the CSQ scales was generally supported, with the Catastrophizing and Praying or Hoping scales demonstrating the strongest construct validity across criterion measures. Criterion-based validity for the CSQ scales varied depending on the criterion measure. The Catastrophizing and Praying or Hoping scales also had the strongest criterion-based validity, with ROC curve areas as high as 0.71 (95% confidence interval = 0.67, 0.75), P < 0.001, for identifying persons with substantial physical function deficits.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that several of the two-item CSQ scales demonstrate a modest level of construct validity along with fair criterion-based validity. The Catastrophizing and Praying or Hoping scales appear to hold the most promise for clinical applications and future longitudinal research.Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.