Initial validation of the exercise chronic pain acceptance questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pain acceptance, measured by the chronic pain acceptance questionnaire (CPAQ), is related to exercise adherence for those with arthritis. The CPAQ measure has 20 items comprising two subscales -- pain willingness and activities engagement about pursuing "valued daily activities" despite pain. However, exercise is not specified as a valued activity and respondents may be considering other activities raising generalizability and strength of prediction concerns. METHODS: Accordingly, a modified CPAQ solely for exercise (CPAQ-E) was developed to heighten salience to pursuit of exercise in the face of pain. An exercising sample with arthritis (N=98) completed the CPAQ-E at baseline and exercise 2 weeks later. Exploratory factor analysis of the CPAQ-E was performed using Mplus. Regression was used to predict exercise. RESULTS: =85.695, df=64, p<.037; RMSEA=.055; CFI=.967; TLI=.954). Both subscales and the total score positively predicted future weekly exercise bouts (range ps from <.05 to <.001). Activities engagement predicted future weekly exercise volume (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study offers preliminary support for the factorial and predictive validity of the CPAQ-E among exercising individuals with arthritis. IMPLICATIONS: This measure could help researchers increase the specificity and sensitivity of pain acceptance responses to exercising among individuals with arthritis. A more sensitive measure might help clinicians interpret patient responses to exercise for pain self-management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".