Development and Validation of the French‐Canadian Chronic Pain Self‐Efficacy Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perceived self-efficacy is a non-negligible outcome when measuring the impact of self-management interventions for chronic pain patients. However, no validated, chronic pain-specific self-efficacy scales exist for studies conducted with French-speaking populations. OBJECTIVES: To establish the validity of the use of the French-Canadian Chronic Pain Self-efficacy Scale (FC-CPSES) among chronic pain patients. METHODS: The Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale is a validated 33-item self-administered questionnaire that measures perceived self-efficacy to perform self-management behaviours, manage chronic disease in general and achieve outcomes (a six-item version is also available). This scale was adapted to the context of chronic pain patients following cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. The FC-CPSES was administered to 109 fibromyalgia and 34 chronic low back pain patients (n=143) who participated in an evidence-based self-management intervention (the PASSAGE program) offered in 10 health care centres across the province of Quebec. Cronbach's alpha coefficients (α) were calculated to determine the internal consistency of the 33- and six-item versions of the FC-CPSES. With regard to convergent construct validity, the association between the FC-CPSES baseline scores and related clinical outcomes was examined. With regard to the scale's sensitivity to change, pre- and postintervention FC-CPSES scores were compared. RESULTS: Internal consistency was high for both versions of the FC-CPSES (α=0.86 to α=0.96). Higher self-efficacy was significantly associated with higher mental health-related quality of life and lower pain intensity and catastrophizing (P<0.05), supporting convergent validity of the scale. There was a statistically significant increase in FC-CPSES scores between pre- and postintervention measures for both versions of the FC-CPSES (P<0.003), which supports their sensitivity to clinical change during an intervention. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that both versions of the FC-CPSES are reliable and valid for the measurement of pain management self-efficacy among chronic pain patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".