Reliability and validity of the Brief Pain Inventory in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain is prevalent in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) appears to be a feasible questionnaire to assess this symptom. However, the reliability and validity of the BPI have not been determined in individuals with COPD. This study aimed to determine the internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity (construct, convergent, divergent and discriminant) of the BPI in individuals with COPD. METHODS: In order to examine the test-retest reliability, individuals with COPD were recruited from pulmonary rehabilitation programmes to complete the BPI twice 1 week apart. In order to investigate validity, de-identified data was retrieved from two previous studies, including forced expiratory volume in 1-s, age, sex and data from four questionnaires: the BPI, short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) and Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 123 participants were included in the analyses (eligible data were retrieved from 86 participants and additional 37 participants were recruited). The BPI demonstrated excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. It also showed convergent validity with the SF-MPQ and divergent validity with the SF-36. The factor analysis yielded two factors of the BPI, which demonstrated that the two domains of the BPI measure the intended constructs. The BPI can also discriminate pain levels among COPD patients with varied levels of quality of life (SF-36) and physical activity (CHAMPS). CONCLUSION: The BPI is a reliable and valid pain questionnaire that can be used to evaluate pain in COPD. SIGNIFICANCE: This study formally established the reliability and validity of the BPI in individuals with COPD, which have not been determined in this patient group. The results of this study provide strong evidence that assessment results from this pain questionnaire are reliable and valid.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".