Cited by 241Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UsePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

A 2-item short form of the pain self-efficacy questionnaire: development and psychometric evaluation of PSEQ-2

Open access
Nicholas, Michael K., McGuire, Brian E., Asghari, Ali·2015·The Journal of Pain

Abstract

Unlabelled The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is an established 10-item measure of pain self-efficacy that is widely used in clinical and research settings. However, a shorter measure would reduce patient and researcher burden and save valuable time in busy clinical settings. The aim of this study was to develop and confirm the psychometric properties of a valid and reliable 2-item short form of the PSEQ (PSEQ-2). We used a large sample of 1,418 chronic pain patients, which we randomly split into 2 smaller groups. We identified the 2 short-form items in Sample 1 and confirmed their properties in Sample 2. In order to identify the 2 items for the short-form measure, we selected the first item based on the highest item-total correlation. The second item was identified after a series of additional analyses. The 2 items identified from the PSEQ reflected confidence in one's ability to work and lead a normal life despite pain. The PSEQ-2's validity and internal consistency were found to be sound. Test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change, and convergent validity were confirmed in a separate patient sample (n = 140) that had recently completed an intervention designed, in part, to modify self-efficacy beliefs. The PSEQ-2 appears to be a robust measure of pain self-efficacy.Perspective Pain self-efficacy is a belief in one's ability to carry out activities even when in pain and is important in coping effectively with pain. A short measure of pain self-efficacy was developed and evaluated. It appears to be suitable for use in clinical and research settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.11.002

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

4 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicholas, M. K., McGuire, B. E., & Asghari, A.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • Shahed University (IR)
Corresponding author
Nicholas, Michael K.
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
153-163
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975558470
Cited by
241
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
pain self-efficacy, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, short-form questionnaire, chronic pain, psychometric properties, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change, convergent validity, internal consistency, pain coping, self-efficacy measurement
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Phobic Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Self Efficacy, Catastrophization

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