↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cross-cultural adaptation of the German Pain Solutions Questionnaire: an instrument to measure assimilative and accommodative coping in response to chronic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Cross-cultural adaptation of the German Pain Solutions Questionnaire: an instrument to measure assimilative and accommodative coping in response to chronic pain
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s130016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Sielski, Julia Anna Glombiewski, Winfried Rief, Geert Crombez, Antonia Barke

Abstract

According to the dual process model of coping, assimilative or accommodative strategies can be applied to deal with aversive life situations. In people with chronic pain, the tenacious focus on achieving analgesia is often referred to as assimilative coping and associated with more disability and catastrophic thinking. In contrast, accommodative coping (accepting one's pain and setting new goals) appears to have beneficial effects. To assess how people with chronic pain use these different coping strategies, questionnaires measuring these concepts are needed. Following international guidelines, a German version of the Pain Solutions Questionnaire (PaSol) was prepared. A sample of 165 participants with chronic low back pain (CLBP; 60% women; age 53 ± 8.4 years) filled in the questionnaire and measures for pain-related disability, affective distress, catastrophic thinking, and attention to pain. Item analyses, an exploratory factor analysis, and correlations with pain-related measures were calculated. In addition, data from 98 participants who received psychological treatment were examined to investigate the PaSol's sensitivity to change. The exploratory factor analysis reproduced the original questionnaire's four-factor structure. Internal consistencies for the subscales ranged from Cronbach's α=0.72 to α =0.84. Mean item difficulties for the subscales ranged from pi=0.62 to pi=0.79. The highest correlations were found for Meaningfulness with catastrophic thinking (r=-0.58) and affective distress (r=-0.36). The PaSol subscale Meaningfulness predicted pain-related disability; the subscales Meaningfulness and Solving Pain predicted affective distress. Furthermore, the PaSol was found to be sensitive to detect changes over time. The German version of the PaSol is a reliable and valid instrument in the measurement of assimilative and accommodative coping strategies in people suffering from CLBP. It may provide a useful tool when examining temporal dynamics of the changing coping strategies in the transition from acute to chronic pain as well as during pain treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,351,475
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,020
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,876
of 316,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#49
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.