测量与疼痛相关的行为抑制和行为激活系统反应:疼痛反应量表的进一步有效性证据。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Alicia E López-Martínez, Rosa Esteve, Gloria Sainero-Tirado, Carmen Ramírez-Maestre, Elena R Serrano-Ibáñez, Rocío de la Vega, Melissa A Day, Mark P Jensen
{"title":"测量与疼痛相关的行为抑制和行为激活系统反应:疼痛反应量表的进一步有效性证据。","authors":"Alicia E López-Martínez, Rosa Esteve, Gloria Sainero-Tirado, Carmen Ramírez-Maestre, Elena R Serrano-Ibáñez, Rocío de la Vega, Melissa A Day, Mark P Jensen","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Pain Responses Scale and its Short Form (PRS-SF) were recently developed to assess the affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses to pain based on the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS) model of chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to provide additional tests of the psychometric properties of the PRS-SF in a new sample of individuals with chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of Spanish adults (N = 190) with chronic non-cancer pain completed a translated version of the PRS-SF and a battery of questionnaires measuring validity criteria hypothesized the be associated with BIS and BAS activation, including measures of sensitivity to punishment, sensitivity to reward, pain intensity, pain interference, catastrophizing, and pain acceptance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 4-factor structure for the PRS-SF assessing despondent, escape, approach, and relaxation responses (S-B χ 2 [5] = 1.49, Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, Non-Normed Fit Index = 0.99, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.051, Akaike Information Criterion = 4113.66), with marginal internal consistency for 1 scale (relaxation) and adequate to good internal consistency for the others. The pattern of associations found between the PRS-SF Scale scores and the validity criterion supports the validity of the instrument.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results provide additional support for the validity of the 4 PRS-SF Scale scores, and the reliability of 3 of the scales. If these findings are replicated in future research, investigators may wish to administer more items from the original Relaxation Scale when assessing this domain to ensure adequate reliability for this scale. The other items from the PRS-SF assessing despondent, escape, and approach responses appear to provide at least adequate reliability. When used in this way, the PRS-SF may be used to measure BIS and BAS responses to pain to: (1) provide further tests of the BIS-BAS model of chronic pain and/or (2) understand the potential mediating effects of BIS and BAS responses on the effects of psychological pain treatments to help determine which specific responses are most responsible for the benefits of treatment, and, therefore, which responses should be specifically targeted to enhance treatment response.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"497-503"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Pain-related Behavioral Inhibition and Behavioral Activation System Responses: Further Validity Evidence for the Pain Responses Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Alicia E López-Martínez, Rosa Esteve, Gloria Sainero-Tirado, Carmen Ramírez-Maestre, Elena R Serrano-Ibáñez, Rocío de la Vega, Melissa A Day, Mark P Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Pain Responses Scale and its Short Form (PRS-SF) were recently developed to assess the affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses to pain based on the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS) model of chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to provide additional tests of the psychometric properties of the PRS-SF in a new sample of individuals with chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of Spanish adults (N = 190) with chronic non-cancer pain completed a translated version of the PRS-SF and a battery of questionnaires measuring validity criteria hypothesized the be associated with BIS and BAS activation, including measures of sensitivity to punishment, sensitivity to reward, pain intensity, pain interference, catastrophizing, and pain acceptance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 4-factor structure for the PRS-SF assessing despondent, escape, approach, and relaxation responses (S-B χ 2 [5] = 1.49, Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, Non-Normed Fit Index = 0.99, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.051, Akaike Information Criterion = 4113.66), with marginal internal consistency for 1 scale (relaxation) and adequate to good internal consistency for the others. The pattern of associations found between the PRS-SF Scale scores and the validity criterion supports the validity of the instrument.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results provide additional support for the validity of the 4 PRS-SF Scale scores, and the reliability of 3 of the scales. If these findings are replicated in future research, investigators may wish to administer more items from the original Relaxation Scale when assessing this domain to ensure adequate reliability for this scale. The other items from the PRS-SF assessing despondent, escape, and approach responses appear to provide at least adequate reliability. When used in this way, the PRS-SF may be used to measure BIS and BAS responses to pain to: (1) provide further tests of the BIS-BAS model of chronic pain and/or (2) understand the potential mediating effects of BIS and BAS responses on the effects of psychological pain treatments to help determine which specific responses are most responsible for the benefits of treatment, and, therefore, which responses should be specifically targeted to enhance treatment response.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"497-503\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001227\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001227","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:疼痛反应量表及其简表(PRS-SF疼痛反应量表及其简表(PRS-SF)是最近根据慢性疼痛的行为抑制和行为激活系统(BIS-BAS)模型开发的,用于评估对疼痛的情感、行为和认知反应。本研究的目的是在新的慢性疼痛患者样本中对 PRS-SF 的心理测量特性进行进一步测试:来自西班牙的 190 名慢性非癌症疼痛成人样本完成了 PRS-SF 的翻译版本和一系列问卷,这些问卷测量了假设与 BIS 和 BAS 激活相关的有效性标准,包括对惩罚的敏感性、对奖励的敏感性、疼痛强度、疼痛干扰、灾难化和疼痛接受度的测量:确认性因子分析支持 PRS-SF 的 4 因子结构,即评估绝望、逃避、接近和放松反应(S-B χ2 (5)=1.49, CFI=0.99, NNFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.051, AIC= 4113.66),其中一个量表(放松)的内部一致性较差,其他量表的内部一致性足够好。PRS-SF 量表得分与有效性标准之间的关联模式支持了该工具的有效性:讨论:研究结果进一步证明了 PRS-SF 四个量表得分的有效性和其中三个量表的可靠性。如果在今后的研究中重复这些结果,调查人员在评估这一领域时,不妨从原来的放松量表中选取更多的项目,以确保该量表有足够的信度。PRS-SF 中评估绝望、逃避和接近反应的其他项目似乎至少提供了足够的可靠性。以这种方式使用 PRS-SF 时,可用于测量 BIS 和 BAS 对疼痛的反应,以(1)进一步测试慢性疼痛的 BIS-BAS 模型,和/或(2)了解 BIS 和 BAS 反应对心理疼痛治疗效果的潜在中介作用,以帮助确定哪些特定反应对治疗效果最有帮助,从而确定应特别针对哪些反应来增强治疗反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring Pain-related Behavioral Inhibition and Behavioral Activation System Responses: Further Validity Evidence for the Pain Responses Scale.

Objectives: The Pain Responses Scale and its Short Form (PRS-SF) were recently developed to assess the affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses to pain based on the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS) model of chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to provide additional tests of the psychometric properties of the PRS-SF in a new sample of individuals with chronic pain.

Methods: A sample of Spanish adults (N = 190) with chronic non-cancer pain completed a translated version of the PRS-SF and a battery of questionnaires measuring validity criteria hypothesized the be associated with BIS and BAS activation, including measures of sensitivity to punishment, sensitivity to reward, pain intensity, pain interference, catastrophizing, and pain acceptance.

Results: Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 4-factor structure for the PRS-SF assessing despondent, escape, approach, and relaxation responses (S-B χ 2 [5] = 1.49, Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, Non-Normed Fit Index = 0.99, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.051, Akaike Information Criterion = 4113.66), with marginal internal consistency for 1 scale (relaxation) and adequate to good internal consistency for the others. The pattern of associations found between the PRS-SF Scale scores and the validity criterion supports the validity of the instrument.

Conclusion: The results provide additional support for the validity of the 4 PRS-SF Scale scores, and the reliability of 3 of the scales. If these findings are replicated in future research, investigators may wish to administer more items from the original Relaxation Scale when assessing this domain to ensure adequate reliability for this scale. The other items from the PRS-SF assessing despondent, escape, and approach responses appear to provide at least adequate reliability. When used in this way, the PRS-SF may be used to measure BIS and BAS responses to pain to: (1) provide further tests of the BIS-BAS model of chronic pain and/or (2) understand the potential mediating effects of BIS and BAS responses on the effects of psychological pain treatments to help determine which specific responses are most responsible for the benefits of treatment, and, therefore, which responses should be specifically targeted to enhance treatment response.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信