Cited by 177Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) – Statistical properties and model fit of an instrument to assess change processes in pain related disability

Wicksell, Rikard K., Lekander, Mats, Sorjonen, Kimmo, Olsson, Gunnar L.·2010·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

Recent developments within CBT have emphasized acceptance rather than control of pain and distress in treatments aimed at improving functioning and life quality, but there is still a lack of reliable and valid instruments to assess relevant processes in such interventions. The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) was developed to assess target variables in exposure and acceptance oriented treatments. A preliminary validation study resulted in a two‐factor solution with subscales for avoidance and cognitive fusion related to pain, showing satisfactory psychometric properties. This study sought to evaluate the instrument with 611 participants with whiplash associated disorders. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a two‐factor solution with 12 items which showed an acceptable model fit, adequate internal consistencies, and strong relations with criteria variables (e.g. disability and life satisfaction). The construct validity of the instrument was supported by high correlations with subscales from the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK). Notably, hierarchical regression analyses illustrated that PIPS explained more variance than TSK in pain, disability, life satisfaction and depression. Furthermore, PIPS was found to mediate the relationship between e.g. pain and disability, suggesting the usefulness of PIPS as a process measure in treatments of people with chronic pain. Thus, it is argued that this 12‐item version of PIPS may be used to explore the importance of psychological in/flexibility in chronic pain and to analyse processes of change in exposure based interventions, as well as for clinicians in tailoring interventions for patients with chronic debilitating pain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.11.015

Cites

47 of 47 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
Wicksell, R. K., Lekander, M., Sorjonen, K., & Olsson, G. L.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Wicksell, Rikard K.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08
Volume
14
Issue
7
Pages
771.e1-14
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2090496708
Cited by
176
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
psychological inflexibility, chronic pain, pain-related disability, acceptance and commitment therapy, avoidance, cognitive fusion, whiplash-associated disorders, kinesiophobia, life satisfaction, depression, process indicators, psychometric validation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chronic Disease, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Personal Satisfaction, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Chi-Square Distribution, Pain Management

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