Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Danish Version of the Avoidance–Endurance Questionnaire (AEQ): A Dual-Panel Approach

IF 2.4 4区医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI:10.1155/ijcp/2901600

Lotte Ladegaard Kristensen, Thorvaldur Skúli Pálsson, Pablo Bellosta-López

{"title":"Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Danish Version of the Avoidance–Endurance Questionnaire (AEQ): A Dual-Panel Approach","authors":"Lotte Ladegaard Kristensen, Thorvaldur Skúli Pálsson, Pablo Bellosta-López","doi":"10.1155/ijcp/2901600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To translate and culturally adapt the Avoidance–Endurance Questionnaire (AEQ) into Danish, assessing both fear avoidance responses (FARs) and endurance responses (ERs), while investigating relevant psychometric properties.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Panel 1 translated AEQ using the dual-panel method. Panel 2 evaluated the translation and face validity assessed by interviewing both panels. The questionnaire was administered to 119 chronic pain patients, and their responses were used to assess factor structure and internal consistency. Of these, 90 of the participants completed the questionnaire again, and their responses were used to evaluate test–retest reliability.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Both patients and clinicians assessed DK-AEQ with good face validity. Confirmatory factor analysis showed adequate to good fit for affective and cognitive subscales, while adequate to poor fit for behavioral subscales. The internal consistency was adequate in subscales of FAR (Cronbach´s <i>α</i> = 0.8–0.9) and ER (Cronbach’s <i>α</i> = 0.7–0.9). An excellent test–retest reliability was found for FAR 0.94 (95%, CI: 0.91–0.96) and ER 0.92 (95%, CI: 0.88–0.95).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>The Danish version of the AEQ is a valid and reliable tool for assessing FAR and ER in people with chronic pain. It provides clinicians with valuable information on the affective, cognitive, and behavioral mechanisms underlying pain behavior, which can support therapeutic dialog. Potentially, implementing the DK-AEQ may enable stratification of management strategies for individuals living with chronic pain in Denmark.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/ijcp/2901600","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ijcp/2901600","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To translate and culturally adapt the Avoidance–Endurance Questionnaire (AEQ) into Danish, assessing both fear avoidance responses (FARs) and endurance responses (ERs), while investigating relevant psychometric properties.

Methods

Panel 1 translated AEQ using the dual-panel method. Panel 2 evaluated the translation and face validity assessed by interviewing both panels. The questionnaire was administered to 119 chronic pain patients, and their responses were used to assess factor structure and internal consistency. Of these, 90 of the participants completed the questionnaire again, and their responses were used to evaluate test–retest reliability.

Results

Both patients and clinicians assessed DK-AEQ with good face validity. Confirmatory factor analysis showed adequate to good fit for affective and cognitive subscales, while adequate to poor fit for behavioral subscales. The internal consistency was adequate in subscales of FAR (Cronbach´s α = 0.8–0.9) and ER (Cronbach’s α = 0.7–0.9). An excellent test–retest reliability was found for FAR 0.94 (95%, CI: 0.91–0.96) and ER 0.92 (95%, CI: 0.88–0.95).

Discussion

The Danish version of the AEQ is a valid and reliable tool for assessing FAR and ER in people with chronic pain. It provides clinicians with valuable information on the affective, cognitive, and behavioral mechanisms underlying pain behavior, which can support therapeutic dialog. Potentially, implementing the DK-AEQ may enable stratification of management strategies for individuals living with chronic pain in Denmark.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

丹麦版回避-耐力问卷（AEQ）的跨文化适应与验证：双面板方法

目的将回避-耐力问卷（AEQ）翻译成丹麦语并进行文化调整，评估恐惧回避反应（FARs）和耐力反应（ERs），同时调查相关的心理测量特征。方法第一组采用双面板法翻译AEQ。小组2通过采访两个小组来评估翻译和面部效度。对119例慢性疼痛患者进行问卷调查，评估其因素结构和内部一致性。其中，90名参与者再次完成了问卷，他们的回答被用来评估重测信度。结果患者和临床医生对DK-AEQ的面部效度均有较好的评价。验证性因子分析结果表明，情感和认知分量表的拟合良好，行为分量表的拟合较差。FAR分量表（Cronbach′s α = 0.8 ~ 0.9）和ER分量表（Cronbach′s α = 0.7 ~ 0.9）内部一致性较好。FAR为0.94 (95%,CI: 0.91-0.96)， ER为0.92 (95%,CI: 0.88-0.95)，具有良好的重测信度。丹麦版的AEQ是评估慢性疼痛患者FAR和ER的有效和可靠的工具。它为临床医生提供了关于疼痛行为的情感、认知和行为机制的宝贵信息，可以支持治疗对话。潜在地，实施DK-AEQ可能使丹麦慢性疼痛患者的管理策略分层。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Clinical Practice 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

274

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.