Cited by 54Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationPain Management and Treatment

Predictive utility of the CSQ in low back pain: individual vs. composite measures

Dozois, David J.A, Dobson, Keith S, Wong, May, Hughes, Debra, Long, Audrey·1996·Pain

Abstract

Researchers have typically used factor-analytic composite measures of coping, instead of individual scales, to predict rehabilitation outcome. There are, however, both advantages and disadvantages to using individual or composite scores. This study extended the findings of Jensen et al. (1992), by prospectively comparing the individual and composite scores of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) in the prediction of 4 types of adjustment to low back pain. Two-hundred patients completed the CSQ, the Oswestry Index, the SCL-90R, and 4 lifting tasks at admission and discharge from a multidisciplinary pain clinic. Return to work was determined at 9-month follow-up. The CSQ scales were factor-analyzed to devise composite indices, and the 3 resultant factors were compared to the individual scales in the prediction of pain and other outcomes. The results indicated that the relative predictive utility of the composite or individual scales depended on which outcome measure was used to define adjustment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(96)03058-8

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dozois, D. J. A., Dobson, K. S., Wong, M., Hughes, D., & Long, A.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Dozois, David J.A
Venue
Pain
Published
1996-08
Volume
66
Issue
2
Pages
171-180
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092443634
Cited by
54
References
32
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
Coping Strategies Questionnaire, low back pain, coping strategies, composite index, return to work, multidisciplinary pain clinic, Oswestry Disability Index, psychological distress
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Self Concept, Work, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review