ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Validation Assessment of a Pain Interference Questionnaire among Student Pharmacists.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Validation studies of pain interference instruments used among student pharmacists are rare yet essential for understanding their appropriate use and interpretation in pharmacy education and practice. This study conducted validation and reliability assessments of a five-item Pain Interference Scale previously administered to student pharmacists. Construct validity was assessed using Rasch analysis. Unidimensionality was measured using: point-biserial measure correlations; percent of raw variance explained by items; difference between expected; variance modeled by items; and Rasch model fit. To assess scale functioning, response frequency distribution, observed average and sample expected logit distribution, Andrich logit distribution, item separation, and item reliability were assessed. Visual examination of the Item-Person Map determined content validity. Items explained 64.2% of data raw variance. The difference between raw variance modeled and observed was 0.6. Point-biserial measure correlations were >0.77. Item mean-square infits were 0.7-1.3 while outfit measures were 0.72-1.16. There were >10 responses per response category, response frequency and Andrich thresholds progressively advanced, and observed average and sample expected logits advanced monotonically, Andrich logits = -2.33-1.69, item separation = 2.61, and item reliability = 0.87. Item probability curves indicated response categories were minimally yet adequately distinct. Cronbach's alpha = 0.93. The Item-Person Map had a ceiling effect indicating content gaps. In conclusion, the pain interference instrument has acceptable construct validity yet contains content gaps. Additional difficult items should be added to the instrument to better capture pain interference among student pharmacists.
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.