Original Article | Open Access
Samuel F Mikail, Joyce L D'Eon, Théo A De Gagné, "Validation of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory", Pain Research and Management, vol. 1, Article ID 134982, 8 pages, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1155/1996/134982
Validation of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory
OBJECTIVE: To examine the test-retest reliability, construct validity and factor structure of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBPI).DESIGN: A sample of 195 individuals attending a chronic pain clinic completed the PBPI along with a preclinic assessment battery. A subset of this sample completed the assessment package two to four weeks and four to six months later in order to examine the test-retest reliability of the PBPI.RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-factor solution: pain constancy, self-blame, mystery and understanding of chronicity. Internal consistency estimates ranged from 0.63 to 0.75. Pain constancy and understanding of chronicity had good test-retest reliability, while test-retest reliability of the remaining subscales was not adequate. These results differ from those reported in the initial development of the PBPI. Construct validity was determined through examination of correlations between the PBPI and the Beck Depression Inventory, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and a self-blame questionnaire.CONCLUSIONS: The results of this investigation are consistent with the findings of recent investigations that revealed a four-factor solution to the PBPI. However, the subscales of this instrument were not found to be uniformly stable over time. These results suggest that further examination and refinement of item content for two of the subscales are required before the instrument is suitable for clinical use.
Copyright © 1996 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.