Cited by 19Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research

The Norwegian versions of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire CPAQ-20 and CPAQ-8—validation and reliability studies

Eide, Hilde, Leren, Lena, Sørebø, Øystein·2017·Disability and Rehabilitation

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the translated Norwegian version of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ-20) and the shorter version CPAQ-8 based on the same data. METHOD: The sample consisted of 120 women with chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain (CWP). The respondents completed CPAQ-20 and visual analogue scales (pain, fatigue, sleep problems and depression), General Health Questionnaire-12, The Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire and SF-8. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed on a one-factor baseline model, the previous validated CPAQ-20 and CPAQ-8 models, as well as an exploratory generated model based on the current sample. RESULTS: The two-factor model of CPAQ-20 and a two-factor model of CPAQ-8 obtained adequate model fit and outperformed the baseline model. The exploratory factor, analysis-generated two-factor model obtained only a marginally better fit, supporting the two-dimensional model of CPAQ-20. CPAQ-20 and CPAQ-8 had Cronbach's alphas between 0.75 (Pain Willingness subscales both versions) and 0.85. Both scales correlated significantly in the hypothesised direction with all the other scales. CONCLUSION: The Norwegian versions of CPAQ-20 and CPAQ-8 are reliable assessment tools with good construct validity for measurement of acceptance. Future studies should validate the scales in other Norwegian samples. Implication for Rehabilitation CPAQ-20 and CPAQ-8 are valid Norwegian instruments for measuring acceptance of pain. Acceptance of pain is an important process in the rehabilitation of persons with chronic widespread pain. Treatment models supporting acceptance can now be developed and measured further in Norway.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09638288.2016.1198427

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 19

Authors
Eide, H., Leren, L., & Sørebø, Ø.
Affiliations
University of South-Eastern Norway (NO)
Corresponding author
Eide, Hilde
Venue
Disability and Rehabilitation
Published
2016-07-03
Volume
39
Issue
14
Pages
1441-1448
ISSN
  • 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5165
OpenAlex
W2461301633
Cited by
19
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Disability and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Keywords
Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, pain acceptance, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, Norwegian translation, psychometric validation, factor structure, two-factor model
MeSH terms
Adult, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Norway, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Translating, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Chronic Pain, Visual Analog Scale

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