Development and evaluation of short forms of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Pain Self‐efficacy Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To facilitate efficient screening and reduce the length of comprehensive self-report batteries, a four-item short form of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and a two-item short form of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) have been developed and evaluated in samples of patients with arm and upper extremity pain. AIMS: The first aim of this study was to evaluate these short forms in a heterogeneous sample of patients seeking treatment for chronic musculoskeletal pain, using a priori criteria for determining adequate internal consistency, construct validity and sensitivity to change. In addition, the findings of past studies were used to identify items suitable for new and potentially stronger short forms of these measures. METHOD: Data were provided by 280 patients who completed the original PCS and PSEQ as part of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation programme. RESULTS: The previously developed four-item PCS and the newly developed six-item short form of the PCS both met the internal consistency and construct validity criteria. They did not meet the criterion regarding sensitivity to change. However, similar to what was obtained using the original PCS, large effect sizes were found when using these short forms to examine pre-treatment to post-treatment changes in catastrophizing. For the PSEQ, the new four-item short form was clearly superior to the other alternatives and met all three criteria. CONCLUSION: The strongest short forms of the PCS and PSEQ could facilitate the assessment of pain catastrophizing and self-efficacy in situations in which the use of the longer original measures is not feasible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".