Cited by 163Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Education and ValidationPain Management and Opioid Use

Measuring Pain Self-efficacy

Miles, Clare L., Pincus, Tamar, Carnes, Dawn, Taylor, Stephanie J.C., Underwood, Martin·2011·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is likely that people with chronic pain who have low self-efficacy have a worse prognosis. A standard, high-quality measure of self-efficacy in such populations would improve evidence, by allowing meaningful comparisons amongst subgroups and between treatments, and by facilitating pooling across studies in systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES: To identify self-administered pain-related self-efficacy measures used in people with chronic pain and to evaluate the clinimetric evidence of the most commonly used scales systematically. METHODS: We searched 2 databases to identify self-efficacy questionnaires. We evaluated questionnaires identified against previously developed criteria for clinimetric assessment. RESULTS: We identified 13 relevant measurements assessing self-efficacy, and clinimetrically assessed 5 of these. These questionnaires were the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale, the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale, and the Self-Efficacy Scale. None of the questionnaires showed satisfactory results for all properties. All scales were easily scored and dimensionality was assessed in 2 of 6 of the scales. Internal consistency was acceptable for all questionnaires. There was positive evidence for construct validity in 4 of 6 of the questionnaires. None of the studies used the most up-to-date method of test-retest reliability or responsiveness. Information on interpretability of the scores was minimal in all questionnaires. DISCUSSION: Further research should focus on assessing responsiveness and interpretability of these questionnaires. Researchers should select questionnaires that are most appropriate for their study aims and population and contribute to further validation of these scales. Future research should measure outcome expectancy alongside self-efficacy to best predict future behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0b013e318208c8a2

Cites

0 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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miles, C. L., Pincus, T., Carnes, D., Taylor, S. J. C., & Underwood, M.
Affiliations
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Miles, Clare L.
  • Pincus, Tamar
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2011-06
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
461-470
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056713908
Cited by
163
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Royal Holloway Digital Repository (Royal Holloway University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0707-10189)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
pain self-efficacy, chronic pain, self-efficacy questionnaire, clinimetric properties, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, self-efficacy scale, outcome expectations
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Pain, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence, Self Efficacy

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