Cited by 19Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Validation of a Chinese version of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CAPQ) and CPAQ-8 in chronic pain patients

Open access
Liu, Yaqun, Wang, Lei, Wei, Yibo, Wang, Xiaolin, Xu, Tianming, Sun, Jinhai·2016·Medicine

Abstract

Acceptance of chronic pain has increasingly become a significant issue in the field of pain management. Many researchers have suggested that patients with better acceptance of pain are more likely to have better functioning both in physical and psychological status. In many countries, the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) and CPAQ-8 have been validated and utilized frequently to measure the pain acceptance of patients with chronic pain. However, the CPAQ and CPAQ-8 yet have not been introduced and validated in Mainland China.In this study, we aimed to translate the English version of the CPAQ into simplified Chinese, make proper cross-cultural adaptations, and validate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the CPAQ and the CPAQ-8.The English version of the CPAQ was first linguistically translated and cross-culturally adapted to formulate a Chinese version. Then, we recruited 224 patients from a pain clinic and every participant was asked to finish a series of questionnaires. Finally, statistical analysis was performed to test the psychometric properties of the CPAQ and the CPAQ-8.Both confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and principal component analysis (PCA) confirmed a 2-factor structure for the CPAQ and the CPAQ-8. Nine out of 10 of the hypotheses were validated for construct validity. The overall intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value for the CPAQ and CPAQ-8 were 0.92 and 0.89, respectively. In addition, the Cronbach α values for both the CPAQ and the CPAQ-8 showed excellent test-retest reliability.In conclusion, the original CPAQ was successfully developed into the Chinese version of the CPAQ and CPAQ-8 with excellent validity and reliability. The scores of the CPAQ or CPAQ-8 might be a strong predictor for the physical and psychological function of chronic pain patients. In addition, to improve the satisfaction of surgery patients, we recommend measuring patients' pain acceptance using the CPAQ or CPAQ-8 before and after the surgery. For patients with lower acceptance, psychological interventions may be more effective than treatment that simply reduces symptoms. Finally, we suggest that the Chinese version of the CPAQ and CPAQ-8 are appropriate for use in clinical settings or fundamental research in Mainland China.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/md.0000000000004339

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • All the measures employed have excellent or good internal consistency and test-retest reliability and are widely used as outcome measures in chronic pain services.

    “All the measures employed have excellent or good internal consistency and test-retest reliability 9,10,14 -16 and are widely used as outcome measures in chronic pain services.”

    From A service evaluation to examine the effectiveness of chronic pain management programmes delivered using video conferencing technology compared to in-person (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results (Internal consistency and test–retest reliability; page unavailable) report excellent internal consistency and high test–retest reliability for the Chinese CPAQ and CPAQ-8. The paper does not establish that all measures employed by the citing authors are widely used as outcome measures in chronic pain services. Its Discussion says sensitivity to change was not determined and further study is needed before using these Chinese versions to assess intervention efficacy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Published reliable change values were not found for the PSEQ, CPAQ and PCS questionnaires, so Criterion A on the Leeds RCI calculator, which uses Cronbach's alpha as a reliability measure, was used with values from several large studies: PSEQ = 0.94, CPAQ = 0.90 and PCS = 0.87.

    “Published reliable change values were not found for the PSEQ, CPAQ and PCS questionnaires. Therefore, we used Criterion A on the Leeds RCI calculator which uses Cronbach ' s alpha as a reliability measure, and were found from several large studies as follows: PSEQ = 0.94, 11 CPAQ = 0.90, 15 and PCS = 0.87. 16”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [17]Geisser DS A comparison of acceptance-focused and control-focused psychological treatments in a chronic pain treatment center [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Reno, NV: University of Nevada; 1992.
  2. [33]Applied Social Research Methods, DeVellis RF Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Second Edition. 2003.
  3. [40]Vowles KE McCracken LM McLeod C The Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire: confirmatory factor analysis and identification of patient subgroups. Pain 2008; 140: 284– 291. 18824301
  4. [41]Hayes SC Strosahl K Wilson KG Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The Process and Practice of Mindful Change. New York: Guilford Press; 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Y., Wang, L., Wei, Y., Wang, X., Xu, T., & Sun, J.
Affiliations
  • Second Military Medical University (CN)
  • Shanghai Zhabei District Shibei Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Xu, Tianming
  • Sun, Jinhai
Venue
Medicine
Published
2016-08
Volume
95
Issue
33
Pages
e4339
ISSN
0025-7974 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2517422076
Cited by
19
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, chronic pain, pain acceptance, cross-cultural adaptation, Chinese translation, psychometric validation, construct validity, test-retest reliability, factor structure, psychological intervention
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, China, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Translating, Reproducibility of Results, Principal Component Analysis, Chronic Pain, Pain Management

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