Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Scandinavian Journal of Pain

Official Journal of the Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain

Editor-in-Chief: Breivik, Harald


CiteScore 2017: 0.84

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.401
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.452

Online
ISSN
1877-8879
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 13, Issue 1

Issues

Rasch analysis resulted in an improved Norwegian version of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale(PABS)

Nicolaas D. Eland / Alice Kvåle
  • Physiotherapy Research Group, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Kalfarveien 31, 5018 Bergen, Norway
  • Occupational Therapy, Physiotherapy and Radiography, Department of Health and Social Sciences, Bergen University College, Inndalsveien 28, 5020 Bergen, Norway
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Raymond W.J.G. Ostelo
  • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU Medical Centre, de Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Liv Inger Strand
  • Physiotherapy Research Group, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Kalfarveien 31, 5018 Bergen, Norway
  • Department of Physiotherapy, Haukeland University Hospital, Haukelandsveien 22, 5021 Bergen, Norway
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-10-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.06.009

Abstract

Background and aim

There is evidence that clinicians’ pain attitudes and beliefs are associated with the pain beliefs and illness perceptions of their patients and furthermore influence their recommendations for activity and work to patients with back pain. The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) is a questionnaire designed to differentiate between biomedical and biopsychosocial pain attitudes among health care providers regarding common low back pain. The original version had 36 items, and several shorter versions have been developed. Concern has been raised over the PABS’ internal construct validity because of low internal consistency and low explained variance. The aim of this study was to examine and improve the scale’s measurement properties and item performance.

Methods

A convenience sample of 667 Norwegian physiotherapists provided data for Rasch analysis. The biomedical and biopsychosocial subscales of the PABS were examined for unidimensionality, local response independency, invariance, response category function and targeting of persons and items. Reliability was measured with the person separation index (PSI). Items originally excluded by the developers of the scale because of skewness were re-introduced in a second analysis.

Results

Our analysis suggested that both subscales required removal of several psychometrically redundant and misfitting items to satisfy the requirements of the Rasch measurement model. Most biopsychosocial items needed revision of their scoring structure. Furthermore, we identified two items originally excluded because of skewness that improved the reliability of the subscales after reintroduction. The ultimate result was two strictly unidimensional subscales, each consisting of seven items, with invariant item ordering and free from any form of misfit. The unidimensionality implies that summation of items to valid total scores is justified. Transformation tables are provided to convert raw ordinal scores to unbiased interval-level scores. Both subscales were adequately targeted at the ability level of our physiotherapist population. Reliability of the biomedical subscale as measured with the PSI was 0.69. A low PSI of 0.64 for the biopsychosocial subscale indicated limitations with regard to its discriminative ability.

Conclusions

Rasch analysis produced an improved Norwegian version of the PABS which represents true (fundamental) measurement of clinicians’ biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientation. However, researchers should be aware of the low discriminative ability of the biopsychosocial subscale when analyzing differences and effect changes.

Implications

The study presents a revised PABS that provides interval-level measurement of clinicians’ pain beliefs. The revision allows for confident use of parametric statistical analysis. Further examination of discriminative validity is required.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale; Attitudes of health care professionals; Psychometrics; Low backpain; Rasch analysis

References

  • [1]

    Werner EL, Ihlebaek C, Skouen JS, Laerum E. Beliefs about low back pain in the Norwegian general population: are they related to pain experiences and health professionals? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1770–6.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [2]

    Bekkering GE, Engers AJ, Wensing M, Hendriks HJ, van Tulder MW, Oostendorp RA, Bouter LM. Development of an implementation strategy for physiotherapy guidelines on low back pain. Aust J Physiother 2003;49:208–14.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [3]

    Daykin AR, Richardson B. Physiotherapists’ pain beliefs and their influence on the management of patients with chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:783–95.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [4]

    Swinkels IC, van den Ende CH, van den Bosch W, Dekker J, Wimmers RH. Physiotherapy management of low back pain: does practice match the Dutch guidelines? Aust J Physiother 2005;51:35–41.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [5]

    Pincus T, Vogel S, Breen A, Foster N, Underwood M. Persistent back pain—why do physical therapy clinicians continue treatment? A mixed methods study of chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists. Eur J Pain 2006;10:67–76.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [6]

    Pincus T, Foster NE, Vogel S, Santos R, Breen A, Underwood M. Attitudes to back pain amongst musculoskeletal practitioners: a comparison of professional groups and practice settings using the ABS-mp. Man Ther 2007;12:167–75.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [7]

    Oostendorp RA, Elvers H, Mikolajewska E, Laekeman M, van TE, Samwel H, Duquet W. Manual physical therapists’ use of biopsychosocial history taking in the management of patients with back or neck pain in clinical practice. Scientific World Journal 2015;2015:170463.Google Scholar

  • [8]

    Rainville J, Bagnall D, Phalen L. Health care providers’ attitudes and beliefs about functional impairments and chronic back pain. Clin J Pain 1995;11:287–95.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    Linton SJ, Vlaeyen J, Ostelo R. The back pain beliefs of health care providers: are we fear-avoidant? J Occup Rehabil 2002;12:223–32.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [10]

    Ostelo RW, Vlaeyen JW. Attitudes and beliefs of health care providers: extending the fear-avoidance model. Pain 2008;135:3–4.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [11]

    Evans DW, Breen AC, Pincus T, Sim J, Underwood M, Vogel S, Foster NE. The effectiveness of a posted information package on the beliefs and behavior of musculoskeletal practitioners: the UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths, and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low Back Pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) randomized trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:858–66.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [12]

    Domenech J, Sanchez-Zuriaga D, Segura-Orti E, Espejo-Tort B, Lison JF. Impact of biomedical and biopsychosocial training sessions on the attitudes, beliefs, and recommendations of health care providers about low back pain: a randomised clinical trial. Pain 2011;152:2557–63.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [13]

    Simmonds MJ, Derghazarian T, Vlaeyen JW. Physiotherapists’ knowledge, attitudes, and intolerance of uncertainty influence decision making in low back pain. Clin J Pain 2012;28:467–74.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [14]

    Darlow B, Fullen BM, Dean S, Hurley DA, Baxter GD, Dowell A. The association between health care professional attitudes and beliefs and the attitudes and beliefs, clinical management, and outcomes of patients with low back pain: a systematic review. Eur J Pain 2012;16:3–17.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [15]

    Von Korff M, Barlow W, Cherkin D, Deyo RA. Effects of practice style in managing back pain. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:187–95.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [16]

    Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 1993;52:157–68.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17]

    Ostelo RW, Stomp-van den Berg SG, Vlaeyen JW, Wolters PM, de Vet HC. Health care provider’s attitudes and beliefs towards chronic low back pain: the development of a questionnaire. Man Ther 2003;8:214–22.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    Pincus T, Vogel S, Santos R, Breen A, Foster N, Underwood M. The attitudes to back pain scale in musculoskeletal practitioners (ABS-mp): the development and testing of a new questionnaire. Clin J Pain 2006;22:378–86.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [19]

    Houben RM, Ostelo RW, Vlaeyen JW, Wolters PM, Peters M, Stomp-van den Berg SG. Health care providers’ orientations towards common low back pain predict perceived harmfulness of physical activities and recommendations regarding return to normal activity. Eur J Pain 2005;9:173–83.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [20]

    Bishop A, Foster NE, Thomas E, Hay EM. How does the self-reported clinical management of patients with low back pain relate to the attitudes and beliefs of health care practitioners? A survey of UK general practitioners and physiotherapists. Pain 2008;135:187–95.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [21]

    Bowey-Morris J, Purcell-Jones G, Watson PJ. Test–retest reliability of the pain attitudes and beliefs scale and sensitivity to change in a general practitioner population. Clin J Pain 2010;26:144–52.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22]

    Overmeer T, Boersma K, Denison E, Linton SJ. Does teaching physical therapists to deliver a biopsychosocial treatment program result in better patient outcomes? A randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 2011;91:804–19.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [23]

    Hendrick P, Mani R, Bishop A, Milosavljevic S, Schneiders AG. Therapist knowledge, adherence and use of low back pain guidelines to inform clinical decisions—a national survey of manipulative and sports physiotherapists in New Zealand. Man Ther 2013;18:136–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [24]

    Beneciuk JM, George SZ. Pragmatic implementation of a stratified primary care model for low back pain management in outpatient physical therapy settings: two-phase, sequential pilot study. Phys Ther 2015.Google Scholar

  • [25]

    Jellema P, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE, Blankenstein AH, Bouter LM, Stalman WA. Why is a treatment aimed at psychosocial factors not effective in patients with (sub)acute low back pain? Pain 2005;118:350–9.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [26]

    Watson PJ, Bowey J, Purcell-Jones G, Gales T. General practitioner sickness absence certification for low back pain is not directly associated with beliefs about back pain. Eur J Pain 2008;12:314–20.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [27]

    Fullen BM, Baxter GD, Doody C, Daly LE, Hurley DA. General practitioners’ attitudes and beliefs regarding the management of chronic low back pain in Ireland: a cross-sectional national survey. Clin J Pain 2011;27:542–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [28]

    Sit RW, Yip BH, Chan DC, Wong SY. Primary care physicians’ attitudes and beliefs towards chronic low back pain: an Asian study. PLoS One 2015;10:e0117521.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [29]

    Vonk F, Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Verhagen AP. Physiotherapists’ treatment approach towards neck pain and the influence of a behavioural graded activity training: an exploratory study. Man Ther 2009;14:131–7.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [30]

    Mutsaers JH, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Ostelo RW, Peters R, Koes BW, Verhagen AP. The psychometric properties of the PABS-PT in neck pain patients: a validation study. Man Ther 2014 Jan 18.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [31]

    Mutsaers JH, Peters R, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Koes BW, Verhagen AP. Psychometric properties of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists: a systematic review. Man Ther 2012.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [32]

    Laekeman MA, Sitter H, Basler HD. The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists: psychometric properties of the German version. Clin Rehabil 2008;22:564–75.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [33]

    Dalkilinc M, Cirak Y, Yilmaz GD, Parlak DY. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists. Physiother Theory Pract 2014:1–8.Google Scholar

  • [34]

    Eland ND, Kvale A, Ostelo RW, Strand LI. The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists: dimensionality and internal consistency of the Norwegian version. Physiother Res Int 2016.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [35]

    Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 1995;7:309–19.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [36]

    Tennant A, McKenna SP, Hagell P. Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004;7(Suppl 1):S22–6.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [37]

    Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980.Google Scholar

  • [38]

    Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2007.Google Scholar

  • [39]

    Christensen KB, Kreiner S, Mesbah M. Rasch models in health. Hoboken, NJ: ISTE Ltd/John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2013.Google Scholar

  • [40]

    Pesudovs K, Noble BA. Improving subjective scaling of pain using Rasch analysis. J Pain 2005;6:630–6.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [41]

    Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1358–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [42]

    Belvedere SL, de Morton NA. Application of Rasch analysis in health care is increasing and is applied for variable reasons in mobility instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:1287–97.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [43]

    Grimby G, Tennant A, Tesio L. The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: time to end malpractice? J Rehabil Med 2012;44:97–8.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [44]

    Andrich D, Sheridan B, Lou G. RUMM2030. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory; 2009.Google Scholar

  • [45]

    Kreiner S, Christensen KB. Person parameter estimation and measurement in Rasch models. In: Christensen KB, Kreiner S, Mesbah M, editors. Rasch models in health. Hoboken, N.J: ISTE Ltd/John Wiley and Sons Inc; 2013. p. 63.Google Scholar

  • [46]

    Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol 2007;46:1–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [47]

    Marais I, Andrich D. Formalizing dimension and response violations of local independence in the unidimensional Rasch model. J Appl Meas 2008;9:200–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [48]

    Marais I. Local independence. In: Christensen KB, Kreiner S, Mesbah M, editors. Rasch models in health. Hoboken, NJ: ISTE Ltd/John Wiley and Sons Inc; 2013. p. 111.Google Scholar

  • [49]

    Smith J. Understanding Rasch measurement: detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimenstionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas 2002;3:205–31.Google Scholar

  • [50]

    Tennant A, Pallant JF. Unidimensionality Matters! (A Tale Of Two Smiths?). Rasch Meas 2006;20:1048–51.Google Scholar

  • [51]

    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar

  • [52]

    Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 2002;3:85–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [53]

    Horton M, Wright N, Dyer W, Wright-Hughes A, Farrin A, Mohammed Z, Smith J, Heyes T, Gilbody S, Tennant A. Assessing the risk of self-harm in an adult offender population: an incidence cohort study. Health Technol Assess 2014;18, 1–viii.Google Scholar

  • [54]

    Wainer H, Kiely G. Item clusters and computerizedadaptive testing: a case for testlets. J Educ Meas 1987;24:185–201.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [55]

    Lundgren NA, Tennant A. Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: the functional independence measure (FIM) revisited. J Rehabil Med 2011;43:884–91.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [56]

    Lange R, Thalbourne MA, Houran J, Storm L. The revised transliminality scale: reliability and validity data from a Rasch top-down purification procedure. Conscious Cogn 2000;9:591–617.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [57]

    Chen WH, Lenderking W, Jin Y, Wyrwich KW, Gelhorn H, Revicki DA. Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Qual Life Res 2014;23:485–93.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [58]

    Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD. The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qual Life Res 2007;16(Suppl 1):19–31.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [59]

    Magalhaes MO, Costa LO, Ferreira ML, Machado LA. Clinimetric testing of two instruments that measure attitudes and beliefs of health care providers about chronic low back pain. Rev Bras Fisioter 2011;15:249–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [60]

    de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measument in medicine. A practical guide. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011.Google Scholar

  • [61]

    de Vet HC, Ader HJ, Terwee CB, Pouwer F. Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1203–18.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [62]

    Wright BD. Comparing Rasch measurement and factor analysis. Struct Equ Modeling 1996;3:3–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Tel.: +47 909 83 795.


Received: 2016-01-16

Revised: 2016-06-20

Accepted: 2016-06-27

Published Online: 2016-10-01

Published in Print: 2016-10-01


Ethical issues: The study was accepted by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (project nr. 28806). Consent of responders was assumed if they completed the questionnaire. Written information was provided to responders regarding the purpose of our study.

Conflict of interest: Nicolaas Eland was supported by the Norwegian Fund for Post Graduate Training in Physiotherapy in writing the manuscript. The authors report no conflict of interests in relation to this paper.


Citation Information: Scandinavian Journal of Pain, Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 98–108, ISSN (Online) 1877-8879, ISSN (Print) 1877-8860, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.06.009.

Export Citation

© 2016 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in