ArticlePloS one2018
Item response theory evaluation of the biomedical scale of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric properties of Parenting Sense of Competence Scale using item-response theory.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese Flow State Scale Short (FSS-BR-S).PloS one · 2024Article
- Pain knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of doctor of physical therapy students: changes across the curriculum and the role of an elective pain science course.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2021Article
- Health-related quality of life in Iranian adolescents: a psychometric evaluation of the self-report form of the PedsQL 4.0 and an investigation of gender and age differences.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Article
- Validation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese dispositional flow scale 2 (DFS-BR).PloS one · 2021Article
- Modification and verification of the Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale: a psychometric analysis combining item response theory with classical test theory.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe assessment of health care professionals' attitudes and beliefs towards musculoskeletal pain is essential because they are key determinants of their clinical practice behaviour. The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) biomedical scale evaluates the degree of health professionals' biomedical orientation towards musculoskeletal pain and was never assessed using item response theory (IRT). This study aimed at assessing the psychometric performance of the 10-item biomedical scale of the PABS scale using IRT.
methodsTwo cross-sectional samples (BeBack, n = 1016; DABS; n = 958) of health care professionals working in the UK were analysed. Mokken scale analysis (nonparametric IRT) and common factor analysis were used to assess dimensionality of the instrument. Parametric IRT was used to assess model fit, item parameters, and local reliability (measurement precision).
resultsResults were largely similar in the two samples and the scale was found to be unidimensional. The graded response model showed adequate fit, covering a broad range of the measured construct in terms of item difficulty. Item 3 showed some misfit but only in the DABS sample. Some items (i.e. 7, 8 and 9) displayed remarkably higher discrimination parameters than others (4, 5 and 10). The scale showed satisfactory measurement precision (reliability > 0.70) between theta values -2 and +3. DISCUSSION: The 10-item biomedical scale of the PABS displayed adequate psychometric performance in two large samples of health care professionals, and it is suggested to assess group-level professionals degree of biomedical orientation towards musculoskeletal pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.