Construct Validity and Internal Consistency of the Catalan Version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in Young People With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct validity and reliability of the Catalan version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) in a sample of young people with chronic pain. Two hundred twenty-seven young people with chronic pain (age range = 12–24 years, mean age = 17.87 years, SD = 3.08 years) participated in this study. The findings support a one-factor structure of the PSEQ, and the scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability in our sample. In addition, convergent validity was supported by a loading of average variance extracted (AVE) greater than .50, and discriminant validity was supported by the finding that self-efficacy and pain-related anxiety AVEs were greater than the shared variance between both constructs. Further support for the measure’s construct validity was shown by (1) significant and positive associations between PSEQ scores and adaptive coping strategies and (2) negative and significant associations between PSEQ scores and maladaptive coping strategies and catastrophizing thoughts. The results of this study indicate that the Catalan version of the PSEQ is reliable and valid when used to assess pain self-efficacy beliefs in young people with chronic pain.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".