Cited by 25Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Validation of Simplified Chinese Version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (SC-PSEQ) and SC-PSEQ-2 for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain in Mainland China

Yang, Yilin, Yang, Mingyuan, Bai, Jinyi, Zhao, Jian, Chen, Kai, Zhou, Xiaoyi, Wei, Xianzhao, Li, Ming·2019·Spine

Abstract

Study Design.: A prospective study. Objective.: The aim of this study was to develop the simplified Chinese version of Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) (SC-PESQ) and PSEQ-2 (SC-PSEQ-2), and evaluate the psychometric properties of the two questionnaires in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Summary of Background Data.: PSEQ has been cross-culturally adapted into many languages with excellent reliability and validity. Recently, the short form of PSEQ-2 was developed and exhibited satisfactory psychometric properties. However, PSEQ and PSEQ-2 has not been translated or validated in mainland China. Methods.: The original version of PSEQ and PSEQ-2 was linguistically translated and adapted to formulate the simplified Chinese version, which was then administrated by 219 patients with low back pain, along with a set of self-report health-related instruments. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SC-PESQ and SC-PSEQ-2. Results.: Two hundred nineteen patients with nonspecific low back pain were enlisted into the analysis. The SC-PSEQ and SC-PSEQ-2 had been determined excellent internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, 0.95 and 0.83), test-retest reliability (overall ICC, 0.91 and 0.88), and sound construct validity, which were supported by moderately strong association with the criterion measures, respectively. In addition, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis have found and confirmed one-factor solution in SC-PSEQ as hypothesized. Conclusion.: The SC-PESQ and SC-PSEQ-2 showed satisfactory psychometric properties in Chinese population with low back pain, and could be safely utilized to evaluating the self-efficacy in clinical and research setting. Level of Evidence: 4

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/brs.0000000000003099

Cites

32 of 32 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
Yang, Y., Yang, M., Bai, J., Zhao, J., Chen, K., Zhou, X., Wei, X., & Li, M.
Affiliations
Second Military Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Wei, Xianzhao
  • Li, Ming
Venue
Spine
Published
2019-10-15
Volume
44
Issue
20
Pages
E1219-E1226
ISSN
  • 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1159
OpenAlex
W2946288844
Cited by
25
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Spine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, non-specific low back pain, pain self-efficacy, Chinese translation, cross-cultural adaptation, psychometric validation, test-retest reliability, construct validity, factor structure
MeSH terms
Adult, China, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Translating, Reproducibility of Results, Low Back Pain, Self Efficacy, Young Adult

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