Portuguese Version of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory: a Multicenter Validation Study

• Main Author: Azevedo, LF
• Publication Date: 2017
• Other Authors: Sampaio, R, Dias, C, Romão, J, Lemos, L, Agualusa, L, Vaz-Serra, S, Patto, T, Costa-Pereira, A, Castro-Lopes, JM
• Format: Article
• Language: eng
• Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
• Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3950
• topic: HSAC ANS; Adult; Aged; Female; Male; Humans; Chronic Pain / diagnosis*; Chronic Pain / epidemiology*; Chronic Pain / psychology; Culture; Middle Aged; Longitudinal Studies; Pain Measurement / methods; Pain Measurement / standards*; Pain Perception / physiology; Portugal / epidemiology; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires; Translations*

Background: We aimed to perform the translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBPI) for the European Portuguese language and chronic pain population. Methods: This is a longitudinal multicenter validation study. A Portuguese version of the PBPI (PBPI-P) was created through a process of translation, back translation, and expert panel evaluation. The PBPI-P was administered to a total of 122 patients from 13 chronic pain clinics in Portugal, at baseline and after 7 days. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed by Cronbach's alpha (α) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct (convergent and discriminant) validity was assessed based on a set of previously developed theoretical hypotheses about interrelations between the PBPI-P and other measures. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the theoretical structure of the PBPI-P. Results: The internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients for each respective subscale were α = 0.620 and ICC = 0.801 for mystery; α = 0.744 and ICC = 0.841 for permanence; α = 0.778 and ICC = 0.791 for constancy; and α = 0.764 and ICC = 0.881 for self-blame. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure (performance, constancy, self-blame, and mystery) that explained 63% of the variance. The construct validity of the PBPI-P was shown to be adequate, with more than 90% of the previously defined hypotheses regarding interrelations with other measures confirmed. Conclusion: The PBPI-P has been shown to be adequate and to have excellent reliability, internal consistency, and validity. It may contribute to a better pain assessment and is suitable for research and clinical use.