<scp>G</scp> erman Language Adaptation of the <scp>H</scp> eadache <scp>M</scp> anagement <scp>S</scp> elf‐Efficacy <scp>S</scp> cale ( <scp>HMSE</scp> ‐ <scp>G</scp> ) and Development of a New Short Form ( <scp>HMSE</scp> ‐ <scp>G</scp> ‐ <scp>SF</scp> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and validate a German version of French and colleagues' Headache Management Self-efficacy Scale and to construct an abbreviated form for use in behavioral headache research. Furthermore, the contribution of headache-specific self-efficacy to pain-related disability in German chronic headache sufferers was examined. BACKGROUND: Headache-specific self-efficacy refers to an individuals' confidence that they can engage in behaviors to either prevent headache episodes or to manage headache-related pain and disability. Self-efficacy beliefs have been shown repeatedly to be positively associated with psychological well-being, effective coping, and enhanced treatment outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 304 individuals diagnosed with either migraine, chronic tension-type headache, or a combination of 2 or more headache disorders completed the German Headache Management Self-efficacy Scale and questionnaires assessing headache activity, pain-related coping, general self-efficacy, depression, and anxiety. Responsiveness of the scale was analyzed in a longitudinal subsample of 32 inpatients undergoing headache treatment. Finally, a short form was constructed and evaluated regarding psychometric properties. RESULTS: The German Headache Management Self-efficacy Scale showed good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.87) as did the 6-item short form (Cronbach's α = 0.72). In the longitudinal sample, both versions showed a good ability to change over time (SRM= 0.52-1.16). Chronic headache patients with higher levels of self-efficacy reported lower levels of disability (r = -0.26 to -0.31). Multiple regression analyses revealed headache intensity and headache-specific self-efficacy as strongest predictors of headache-related disability (βself-efficacy = -0.21, βintensity = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Both the 25-item version and the 6-item version appear to be valid, reliable measures of self-efficacy beliefs. These scales will allow clinicians to identify headache sufferers with low levels of headache-specific self-efficacy with the goal of enhancing this expectancy for improvement. The new short form can help accomplish this goal without adding significantly to the burden of the self-report assessment batteries used in clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.030 |
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".