The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) – validation, factor structure and comparison to the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) and other validated measures in German chronic back pain patients

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Julia A. Glombiewski¹  Winfried Rief¹  Jenny Riecke¹  Antonia Barke¹ 

[1] Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Gutenbergstraße 18, Marburg, 35037, Germany

关键词: Validation;    German;    Psychological inflexibility;    Questionnaire;    Back pain;    Chronic pain;   

Others  :  1227714
DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-015-0641-z

 received in 2015-02-04, accepted in 2015-07-21,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for pain offers an alternative to traditional Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) approaches. ACT focuses on the enhancement of ‘psychological flexibility’ that enables individuals to pursue their values and goals despite pain. To assess specific treatment effect or mediators and moderators of change, questionnaires measuring ACT constructs are needed.

Methods

The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) was translated into German and completed by 182 participants with chronic back pain (70.3 % women, age 51.0 ± 10.5 years). Item analyses and a confirmatory factor analysis were computed as well as correlations with the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ), which measures related, but slightly different ACT-related constructs, and self-reported disability, pain intensity and further pain-related questionnaires.

Results

The confirmatory factor analysis reproduced the original structure with two subscales and a good fit. The internal consistencies of the subscales were Cronbach’s α = .91 (Avoidance) and α = .26 (Fusion). Average item-whole correlations of the items with the respective subscales were r = .71 (Avoidance) and r = .20 (Fusion). The highest correlations were observed for Avoidance with the CPAQ (r = −.81), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (r = .58) and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (r = .56) and for Fusion with the CPAQ subscale Pain willingness (r = −.55). The PIPS subscale Avoidance predicted pain-related disability even after controlling for catastrophizing and fear of movement.

Conclusions

The PIPS subscale Avoidance may be a valuable instrument to assess treatment processes in future RCTs. The PIPS subscale Fusion seemed more problematic in the German sample with chronic back pain. More research on the comparison between PIPS and other questionnaires assessing psychological flexibility and the usefulness of the concept ‘Fusion’ for chronic pain are needed.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Barke et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Eccleston C, Williams A, Morley S. Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009;2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub2.
• [2]Hoffman BM, Papas RK, Chatkoff DK, Kerns RD. Meta-analysis of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain. Health Psychology. 2007; 26(1):1-9.
• [3]McCracken LM, Vowles KE. Acceptance and commitment therapy and mindfulness for chronic pain model, process, and progress. American Psychologist. 2014; 69(2):178-87.
• [4]Vowles KE, Witkiewitz K, Sowden G, Ashworth J. Acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: evidence of mediation and clinically significant change following an abbreviated interdisciplinary program of pehabilitation. Journal of Pain. 2014; 15(1):101-13.
• [5]Vowles KE, Sowden G, Ashworth J. A comprehensive examination of the model underlying acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain. Behavior Therapy. 2014; 45(3):390-401.
• [6]Kohl A, Rief W, Glombiewski JA. How effective are acceptance strategies? A meta-analytic review of experimental results. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2012; 43(4):988-1001.
• [7]McCracken LM, Vowles KE, Eccleston C. Acceptance of chronic pain: component analysis and a revised assessment method. Pain. 2004; 107(1–2):159-66.
• [8]Wicksell RK, Renofalt J, Olsson GL, Bond FW, Melin L. Avoidance and cognitive fusion - Central components in pain related disability? Development and preliminary validation of the Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS). European Journal of Pain. 2008; 12(4):491-500.
• [9]Wicksell RK, Lekander M, Sorjonen K, Olsson GL. The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) - Statistical properties and model fit of an instrument to assess change processes in pain related disability. European Journal of Pain. 2010;14(7). doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.11.015.
• [10]Wicksell RK, Olsson GL, Hayes SC. Psychological flexibility as a mediator of improvement in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for patients with chronic pain following whiplash. European Journal of Pain. 2010;14(10). doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.05.001.
• [11]Rodero B, Paulo Pereira J, Cruz Perez-Yus M, Casanueva B, Serrano-Blanco A, Rodrigues da Cunha Ribeiro MJ et al. Validation of a Spanish version of the psychological inflexibility in pain scale (PIPS) and an evaluation of its relation with acceptance of pain and mindfulness in sample of persons with fibromyalgia. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2013;11. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-62.
• [12]Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995; 7(4):524-32.
• [13]Snaith RP, Zigmond AS. The Hospital Anxiety And Depression Scale. Br Med J. 1986; 292(6516):344.
• [14]Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000; 25(24):3186-91.
• [15]Nilges P, Köster B, Schmidt CO. Schmerzakzeptanz – Konzept und Überprüfung einer deutschen Fassung des 'Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire'. Der Schmerz. 2007; 21(1):57-67.
• [16]Meyer K, Sprott H, Mannion AF. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the German version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. J Psychosomat Res. 2008; 64(5):469-78.
• [17]Osman A, Barrios FX, Gutierrez PM, Kopper BA, Merrifield T, Grittmann L. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Further psychometric evaluation with adult samples. J Behav Med. 2000; 23(4):351-65.
• [18]Kori SH, Miller RP, Todd DD. Kinesiophobia: a new view of chronic pain behavior. Pain Management. 1990; 3:35-43.
• [19]Rusu AC, Kreddig N, Hallner D, Hülsebusch J, Hasenbring M. Fear of movement/(re)injury in low back pain: confirmatory validation of a German version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2014; 15:280. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Goubert L, Crombez G, Van Damme S, Vlaeyen JWS, Bijttebier P, Roelofs J. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Tampa scale, for Kinesiophobia - Invariant two-factor model across low back pain patients and fibromyalgia patients. Clin J Pain. 2004; 20(2):103-10.
• [21]Dillmann U, Nilges P, Saile H, Gerbershagen HU. Assessing disability in chronic pain patients. Schmerz (Berlin, Germany). 1994;8(2):100–10. doi:10.1007/bf02530415.
• [22]Pollard CA. Preliminary validity study of the Pain Disability Index. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1984; 59:974.
• [23]Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL et al.. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Measurement properties. Spine. 1995; 20(3):151-61.
• [24]Tait RC, Chibnall JT, Krause S. The Pain Disability Index: Psychometric properties. Pain. 1990; 40(2):171-82.
• [25]Herrmann-Lingen C, Buss U, Snaith RP. HADS-D Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. 3rd ed. Hans Huber, Bern; 2011.
• [26]Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1983; 67:361-70.
• [27]Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. The Journal of Educational Research. 2006; 99(6):323-38.
• [28]Bühner M. Einführung in die Test-und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Hallbergmoos, Pearson Deutschland; 2011.
• [29]Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000; 85(3):317-32.