Cited by 27Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPain Mechanisms and Treatments

Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire: Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity in Italian Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain

Monticone, Marco, Ferrante, Simona, Rocca, Barbara, Nava, Tiziana, Parini, Chiara, Cerri, Cesare·2013·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: To validate the Italian version of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) to allow its use with Italian-speaking patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Growing attention is being given to cognitive-behavioral measures to improve interventions for LBP. The CPAQ has never been validated in Italian subjects with chronic LBP. METHODS: The psychometric testing included confirmatory factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), sensitivity to change by calculating the smallest detectable change, and construct validity by comparing CPAQ with a pain numerical rating scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (Pearson correlations). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were computed to further investigate construct validity of the CPAQ subscales. RESULTS: The questionnaire was administered to 142 subjects with chronic LBP. Factor analysis confirmed a 2-factor (viz., Activities Engagement and Pain Willingness) 20-item solution, achieving a good data-model fit. Internal consistency (α = 0.88) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86) were good. The smallest detectable change was 22. Construct validity showed a moderate correlation between the CPAQ and numerical rating scale (r = -0.485), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire Scale (r = -0.594), and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (r = -0.595), and a close correlation with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (r = -0.610 for the Anxiety score and r = -0.659 for the Depression score) and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (r = -0.658). The standardized regression coefficients for Activity Engagement were significant in all of the equations, and those for Pain Willingness were significant in the anxiety, depression, and disability equations. CONCLUSION: The Italian CPAQ had a good factorial structure and psychometric properties that replicated the results of other versions. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/brs.0b013e3182917299

Cites

25 of 25 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
Monticone, M., Ferrante, S., Rocca, B., Nava, T., Parini, C., & Cerri, C.
Affiliations
  • Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri (IT)
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
Corresponding author
  • Monticone, Marco
  • Rocca, Barbara
Venue
Spine
Published
2013-06
Volume
38
Issue
13
Pages
E824-E831
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043116634
Cited by
27
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Spine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
  • UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, chronic low back pain, Italian translation, psychometric validation, questionnaire reliability, construct validity, pain acceptance, activity engagement, kinesiophobia, anxiety and depression, pain catastrophizing
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Disability Evaluation, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Italy, Language, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Low Back Pain, Young Adult, Chronic Pain

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