ArticleJournal of pain research2021
The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS): Validity and Reliability of the Japanese Version for Chronic Low Back Pain and Knee Pain.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement properties of self-reported outcome measures for older adults with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review.Age and ageing · 2025Pooled it
- High impact chronic pain in children: exploration of associated characteristics and clinical factors in children and parents.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) in Brazilian patients with chronic cancer pain: translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation study.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2025Article
- Physical therapist-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy and exercise for older outpatients with knee osteoarthritis: a pilot randomized controlled trial.Journal of physical therapy science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to translate the Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale Japanese version (PIPS-J) and inspect its validity and reliability in older patients with chronic low back pain and knee pain. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe PIPS was translated into Japanese by a bilingual linguistic expert and three researchers and administered to 120 outpatients with low back pain and knee pain (61.7% women, age 73.8±7.8 years). Construct validity and criterion validity were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis and the correlations with the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II Japanese version (AAQ-II-J) and the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire Japanese version (CFQ-J), respectively. Internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability (n=43) were also examined.
resultsOf all, 78.3% had low back pain, 55.6% had knee pain, and 44.2% both. The confirmatory factor analysis reproduced the original PIPS structure with two factors and indicated good model fit (GFI = 0.915, CFI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.060). All items' standardized regression weights ranged from 0.35 to 0.80. Criterion validity was shown by correlations of r = 0.58 for PIPS-J pain avoidance with the AAQ-II-J, and r = 0.45 between PIPS-J cognitive fusion and the CFQ-J. Cronbach's alpha for the PIPS-J total score was α=0.85 (pain avoidance: 0.87; cognitive fusion: 0.68). The test-retest correlation for all 12 items was r = 0.54 (pain avoidance: 0.48; cognitive fusion: 0.54).
conclusionAlthough a less relevant item was found on each of subscales, the PIPS-J appear to be fairly valid and reliable to evaluate psychological inflexibility in chronic pain among Japanese older adults.
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.