ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2026
[What does the pain self-efficacy questionnaire (German adaption, FESS) assess? : Studies on construct validity].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe German version of the pain self-efficacy questionnaire (FESS) is considered as an operationalization of this construct. Overlaps with pain acceptance, psychological flexibility, and accommodative coping raise questions regarding construct validity. This was investigated by examining the associations of the FESS with these constructs and with general self-efficacy expectations.
methodsThe FESS was administered to 357 patients with chronic pain participating in a day clinic interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMST). Exploratory factor analyses and correlation analyses were used to examine associations with the similar construct of general self-efficacy expectations (general self-efficacy scale, SWE) and to assess distinctness from related constructs of pain acceptance (chronic pain acceptance questionnaire - German version, CPAQ-D) and pain-specific psychological flexibility (German pain solutions questionnaire, PaSol).
resultsA joint factor analysis of FESS and SWE items did not yield a homogeneous item set. In subsequent factor analyses, FESS items, CPAQ-D items, and PaSol subscales related to accommodative coping formed a shared item pool. Correlation analyses indicated less conceptual overlap between SWE and FESS (ρ = 0.403) - within the construct of self-efficacy - compared to stronger overlaps between FESS and the CPAQ-D subscale activity engagement (ρ = 0.803), the CPAQ-D overall score (ρ = 0.766), and the PaSol subscale meaning of life despite pain (ρ = 0.689). DISCUSSION: The results indicate that the FESS does not fully capture the width of pain-specific self-efficacy. Conceptual overlaps are evident with instruments assessing pain acceptance, pain-specific psychological flexibility, and accommodative coping. These findings cast doubt on the content validity of the FESS. The FESS should be critically examined for assessing pain-specific self-efficacy expectations, and the findings obtained should be interpreted carefully. The necessary development of content-valid instruments requires a consensus-based definition of terms and the consistent involvement of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911257What 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.