The Norwegian versions of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire CPAQ-20 and CPAQ-8—validation and reliability studies
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 change of focus from pain intensity to also capturing interference of pain has supported a broader understanding of individual pain impact.
“The change of focus from pain intensity to also capturing interference of pain has supported a broader understanding of individual pain impact.21,63”
From Living well with chronic pain: a 12-month randomized controlled trial revealing impact from the digital pain self-management program EPIO (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
The Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire-8 has acceptable internal consistency and reliability and has been validated in a Norwegian population sample with chronic pain.
“The questionnaire has acceptable internal consistency and reliability and has been validated in a Norwegian population sample with chronic pain [49].”
From Short-Term Findings From Testing EPIO, a Digital Self-Management Program for People Living With Chronic Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [49]
The Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ-8) has acceptable internal consistency and reliability, and has been validated in a Norwegian population sample with chronic pain.
“The CPAQ-8 has acceptable internal consistency and reliability [61], and has been validated in a Norwegian population sample with chronic pain [60].”
From Digital Self-Management in Support of Patients Living With Chronic Pain: Feasibility Pilot Study (2020) · cites this paper as [60]
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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