Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations in rehabilitation research and practice

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3242566/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations in rehabilitation research and practice

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3242566/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Purpose

The objective of this study is to investigate the reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations in the context of work disability.

Methods

Two independent samples of individuals with musculoskeletal pain conditions were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations (“How likely is it that you will return to work?”). Sample 1 consisted of 109 individuals with work-related musculoskeletal injuries and Sample 2 consisted of 152 individuals with whiplash injury. Participants completed measures of demographics, recovery expectations and pain-related psychological variables (depressive symptoms, catastrophizing, fear of movement and perceptions of injustice). At 1-year follow-up, participants reported their work status. Analyses examined the test-retest reliability, parallel-form reliability, construct validity and predictive validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations on work status at 1-year follow-up.

Conclusion

Single-item measures of recovery expectations are a reliable and valid tool to predict work disability at 1-year follow-up in individuals with musculoskeletal pain conditions. This study represents a step towards practice-based evidence by providing a brief, low burden, low-cost measure of recovery expectations that can be seamlessly integrated into clinical workflow and research protocols.

Single-item measure

Expectations

Reliability

Validity

Return to work

Musculoskeletal pain

There is a well-established literature demonstrating that recovery expectations are among the most important determinants of return to work following a musculoskeletal pain condition [1; 5; 7; 12; 15; 16; 18; 26; 31; 35]. Although several multi-item scales have been developed to assess recovery expectations, most researchers opt for single-item measures [6; 19], presumably for their ease of application, brevity, low burden and high response rates. Despite their practical advantages over multi-item measures, the use of single-item measures has often exceeded the very limited evidence of their psychometric qualities.

The gap between practical applications and theoretical requirements has confronted researchers and clinicians with a fragmented and inconsistent scientific literature regarding the assessment of recovery expectations. Numerous studies in the fields of pain and rehabilitation have highlighted the lack of consistency in the measurement of recovery expectations [10; 14; 19]. Most commonly, researchers have stated that the heterogeneity of tools used to measure recovery expectations prevents further understanding of the role of expectations in the context of multidisciplinary pain treatment [28].

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis compared the predictive utility of single-item and multi-item recovery expectation measures on return-to-work outcomes in individuals with musculoskeletal pain conditions [6]. The results revealed no significant differences in the predictive value of single-item and multi-item measures of recovery expectations on return-to-work outcomes. These findings suggest that single-item measures of recovery expectations (e.g., “Do you expect to return to work?”) provide an effective screening tool in the context of rehabilitation. The authors note that most (83%) of the studies included in the review used a single-item measure of recovery expectations without evaluating its reliability. Although it is commonly believed that single-item reliability cannot be estimated, this is not necessarily true, and in fact, they should be estimated [39; 40]. The present research aims to contribute to the field of rehabilitation investigating the reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations in work-disabled individuals with musculoskeletal pain.

The current study adopted a retrospective design using two independent datasets. Details of the methodology and other related data have been reported previously [8–10]. The research programs were approved by the research ethics committee of the Centre de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Readaptation du Montreal Metropolitaine.

Datasets

Sample 1 consisted of 109 participants (47 men and 62 women) with work-related musculoskeletal injuries enrolled in primary care physical therapy. Patients were eligible to participate in the study if they had a primary diagnosis of lumbar or cervical sprain and were currently work disabled, receiving wage indemnity benefits from the provincial board of occupational health and safety (Commission des normes, de l’équité et de la santé et sécurité au travail).

Sample 2 consisted of 154 participants (81 men and 73 women) with whiplash injury enrolled in a standardized 7-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program aimed at return to work. Patients were eligible if they had a primary diagnosis of whiplash-associated disorder and were currently work disabled receiving wage indemnity through a no-fault provincial insurance system (Societe de l’assurance automobile du Quebec).

Informed consent

was obtained from all participants included in both studies. Participants completed self-report measures of demographic variables, recovery expectations and pain-related psychological factors (depressive symptoms, catastrophizing, fear of movement/re-injury, and perceptions of injustice). Participants were contacted by telephone 1 year after program completion and asked to report their current work status.

Measures

Demographic information and follow-up interview

Participants were asked to provide information about their age, education, employment and duration of work disability. At the 1-year follow-up interview, participants were asked if they had successfully returned to work full-time (yes/no).

Pain-related psychological factors

Recovery expectations

Participants were asked to rate the likelihood that they would resume employment over the next month (“How likely is it that within the next month you will have resumed some form of employment?”). For the purpose of assessing parallel-form reliability, a second single-item measure of recovery expectations was included (“How likely is it that within the next month you will have returned to work?”). Participants indicated their responses on a scale with the end points (0%) ‘not at all likely’ to (100%) ‘extremely likely’. Similar single-item measures of recovery expectations have been used in previous studies [4; 6; 36].

Depressive symptoms: The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) was used as a measure of depressive symptom severity [3]. The BDI-II consists of 21 items describing different symptoms of depression. Scores on the BDI-II can range between 0 and 63 where higher scores reflect more severe symptoms of depression. The reported coefficient alpha for the BDI is α = . 89 [17], which is consistent with our data (Sample 1: α = .927; Sample 2: α = .928).

Catastrophizing: The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was used to measure pain catastrophizing [34]. The PCS is a 13-item measure that assesses various thoughts and feelings related to the experience of pain. Higher scores represent higher levels of catastrophizing. The reported coefficient alpha for the PCS is α = . 87 [34], which is consistent with our data (Sample 1: α = .955; Sample 2: α = .953).

Fear of movement: The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) was used to measure pain-related fear of movement/re-injury [22]. The TSK is a 17-item questionnaire that contains statements reflecting worries or concerns about the consequences of participating in physical activity. High scores represent more intense fear of movement. The reported coefficient alpha for the TSK is α = . 77 [37], which is consistent with our data (Sample 1: α = .833; Sample 2: α = .832).

Perceived injustice: Perceived injustice was measured with the Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ) [32]. The IEQ asks respondents to rate how frequently they experience each of 12 injustice-related thoughts. A total IEQ score is computed by summing the 12 items with higher scores reflecting high levels of perceived injustice. The reported coefficient alpha for the IEQ is α = .92 [32], which is consistent with our data (Sample 1: α = .886; Sample 2: α = .887).

Data analysis

Means and standard deviations (SDs) were computed for sample characteristics and questionnaire scores. To assess test-retest reliability, multivariable logistic regression analyses tested the associations between recovery expectations and return to work while accounting for pain catastrophizing, perceived injustice, depressive symptoms and fear of movement using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient predicted probability. Estimated probabilities are continuous variables which allow us to assess correlations. Parallel-form reliability (or alternate-form reliability) was assessed by examining the correlations between the two single-item measures of recovery expectations. For an instrument to demonstrate stability there should be a high correlation between two measures, where the concept being measured (i.e., recovery expectations) is the same but the wording is different. A correlation coefficient of less than .3 signifies a weak correlation, .3– .5 is moderate and greater than .5 is strong. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing correlations between recovery expectations and measures of pain catastrophizing, perceived injustice, depressive symptoms and fear of movement in both samples. Predictive validity was assessed by testing the association between the results of the single-item measure of recovery expectations in both samples, and the future endpoint return to work, as used in previous research [11]. All analyses were performed with SAS 9.4 software.

Descriptive statistics, including mean scores for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables are presented in Table 1. In Sample 1, the mean age was 36.5 years (SD = 10.17 years), and the mean duration of work disability at the time of enrolment was 13.51 weeks (SD = 2.71 weeks). At 1-year follow-up, 61% of participants had returned to work. In Sample 2, the mean age was 36.4 years (SD = 9.3 years), and the mean duration of work disability at the time of enrolment was 15.3 weeks (SD = 9.6 weeks). At 1-year follow-up, 66% of participants had returned to work.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics for both samples
		Sample 1 (N = 110)	Sample 2 (N = 152)
Age		36.5 (10.17)	36.4 (9.27)
Sex		66 women (60%) 44 men (40%)	71 women (46.7) 81 men (53.3)
Duration of pain (weeks)		13.51 (2.71)	15.34 (9.6)
Education	Less than high school High school Trade school College University	12 (19.1%) 26 (23.5%) 29 (26.4%) 20 (18.2%) 14 (12.7%)	15 (9.9%) 44 (28.9%) 25 (16.4%) 44 (28.9%) 24 (15.8%)
Occupation	Labourer Driver Nurse Trade Sales Administrative/Clerical	37 (33.6%) 8 (7.3%) 32 (29.1%) 6 (5.5%) 4 (3.6%) 18 (16.4%)	43 (28.3%) 10 (6.6%) 29 (19.1%) 26 (17.1%) 7 (4.6%) 37 (24.3%)
Successful return to work		67 (60.9%)	100 (65.8%)
Note. Sample 1: Work-related musculoskeletal pain injury, Sample 2: Whiplash injury

Test-retest reliability

The test-retest reliability of recovery expectations was determined using the Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient. In Sample 1, the overall test-retest reliability using the predicted probability from the logistic regression analysis of return to work with recovery expectations was r = .99 (p < .001) and was r = .923 (p < .001) when accounting for depressive symptoms, pain catastrophizing, fear of movement and perceived injustice. In Sample 2, the overall test-retest reliability using the predicted probability from the logistic regression analysis of return to work with recovery expectations was r = .995 (p < .001) and was r = .879 (p < .001) when accounting for depressive symptoms, pain catastrophizing, fear of movement and perceived injustice.

Parallel-form reliability

Parallel-form reliability (or alternate-form reliability) was also assessed by examining the correlations between the two single-item measures of recovery expectations. In Sample 1, the correlation between both measures of recovery expectations was r = .664. In Sample 2, the correlation between both measures was r = .647. The strong correlations (r > .5) between the single-item measures of recovery expectations in both samples indicates high parallel-form reliability.

Construct validity

As shown in Table 2, in both samples, recovery expectations were significantly correlated with measures of depressive symptoms, catastrophizing, fear of movement and perceptions of injustice. The correlations between recovery expectations and pain-related psychological factors also did not differ significantly in individuals with musculoskeletal injury and individuals with whiplash injury. These results are consistent with theoretical predicted pattern of correlations and provide support for the construct validity of the single-item measure of recovery expectations.

Table 2

Correlations between recovery expectations and variables of interest
	Sample 1			Sample 2			Difference between correlations
	M	SD	r	M	SD	r	Sig.
Recovery expectations	72.3	30.3	-	74.67	29.59	-	-
Depressive symptoms	12.21	9.05	− .294*	11.30	8.54	− .358**	.581
Catastrophizing	15.24	11.51	− .434**	14.43	10.76	− .488**	.337
Fear of movement	39.52	8.13	− .339**	39.62	7.06	− .307**	.992
Perceived injustice	19.94	10.62	− .349**	16.15	8.29	− .345**	.543
Note. Sample 1: Work-related musculoskeletal pain injury, Sample 2: Whiplash injury
** p < .001 *=p.002

In addition, the Pearson correlation with predicted probability was .992 and .946 in univariate and multivariable respectively, confirming the high construct validity in Sample 1. In Sample 2, the Pearson correlation with predicted probability was .997 and .879 in univariate and multivariable respectively, confirming the high construct validity.

Predictive validity

A logistic univariable regression was performed to examine the association between the recovery expectations and return of work in each sample and a logistic multivariable regression was also performed to examine the shared and unique contributions of recovery expectations, depressive symptoms, catastrophizing, fear of movement and perceptions of injustice in each sample for the return of work.

In Sample 1, the single-item measure of recovery expectations added significant variance after accounting for pain-related psychological factors, with an R² of 0.426 in univariate and 0.434 in multivariable analyses, and an odds ratio of 1.048 (95% CI 1.026–1.07). The proportion difference between concordant and discordant pairs (including ties) Somers' D was .651 and the proportion difference between concordant and discordant pairs (excluding ties) Gamma was .652. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test had a high p value of .415 indicating good fit, and the AUC was .826 (95% CI 0.74–0.92) with a 95% CI that did not contain .5, confirming that the model offers an important diagnostic capacity.

In Sample 2, the single-item measure of recovery expectations added significant variance after accounting for pain-related psychological factors, with a R² of .3509 in univariate and 0.4471 in multivariable analyses, and an odds ratio of 1.036 (95% CI 1.019–1.053). The proportion difference between concordant and discordant pairs (including ties) Somers' D was .711 and the proportion difference between concordant and discordant pairs (excluding ties) Gamma was .713. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test had a high p value of .7458, indicating good fit, and the AUC was .855 (95% CI 0.79–0.92) with a CI that did not contain .5, confirming that the model offers an important diagnostic capacity.

Recovery expectations are a well-known predictor of pain and disability following musculoskeletal pain conditions. Initial work in this area prompted the development of several rigorous and comprehensive questionnaires. However, as research and practice have continued to evolve, the use of measures of recovery expectations has fallen behind. At present, most researchers and clinicians use single-item measures rather than multi-item measures of recovery expectations. In a recent meta-analysis, Carrière et al. identified a single measure of recovery expectations that can effectively predict return to work, for example, “How likely is it that you will return to work?”[6]. The objective of the present study was to assess the reliability and validity of this single-item measure of recovery expectations and assess the question’s predictive value in relation to future return to work.

The findings of this study provide further support for the use and single-item measures of recovery expectations as a predictive tool for work disability following musculoskeletal pain conditions. The present study utilized two samples of individuals with musculoskeletal pain conditions (Sample 1: Work-related musculoskeletal injury; Sample 2: Whiplash injury) to estimate the reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations in the prediction of work disability. First, we examined the extent to which single-item measures of recovery expectations predict return to work in both samples. By verifying the consistency of the prospective predictive value of recovery expectations on return to work across samples, we were able to estimate the test-retest reliability of single-item measures of recovery expectations. Second, we examined parallel-form reliability by evaluating the correlation between two similar single-item measures of recovery expectations, and determined the two measures were significantly strongly correlated. Third, we examined how the single-item measure of recovery expectations corresponds to established theories by examining the associations between recovery expectations and pain-related psychological variables in both samples. Correlations between recovery expectations and depressive symptoms, catastrophizing, fear of movement and perceptions of injustice were consistent with conceptual models [2; 22; 23; 25; 32; 33; 38] and did not differ significantly between individuals with work-related musculoskeletal injury and whiplash injury. Finally, we examined predictive validity by testing the association between the single-item measure of recovery expectations and return to work, as used in previous research. Together, these results demonstrate the validity and reliability of a single-item measure of recovery expectations and provide evidence to support its use to predict work disability following musculoskeletal pain conditions.

The findings of this study have implications for clinicians in the field of pain and rehabilitation. The results suggest that single-item measures of recovery expectations (e.g., “How likely is it that that you will return to work?”) provide a brief tool to identify individuals at risk for prolonged work disability. Single-item measures offer seamless clinical workflow as they can be administered in a matter of seconds by clinicians or personal with little training in primary care. Single-item measures of recovery expectations can be used to alert clinicians to potential obstacles or challenges that an individual could be facing [30]. In fact, several studies substantiated the need for screening and, if necessary, for quick intervention by providing information directly after pain onset [21; 29]. There is evidence that targeting early psychosocial risk factors in at-risk patients by healthcare providers leads to better health outcomes than standard care [27]. Our results indicate that following a musculoskeletal pain condition, recovery expectations should be assessed to prevent prolonged work disability, and that this can be done using a single-item measure.

Although single-item measures may serve as a red flag, they do not, however, provide any details on the biopsychosocial aspects within the individual’s pain experience that may need further investigation. It is important to consider that psychological factors are but one domain of barriers to successful rehabilitation. In the context of work disability, several aspects of an individual’s pain experience may lead them to form negative/low recovery expectations (See Carrière et al. for a review on recovery expectations [6]). For example, aspects of the work environment, such as margin of manoeuvre, workplace accommodations and employer support may need to be addressed [13; 20]. Interventions aimed at return to work will likely also need to address risk factors within the systems (personal system, workplace system, healthcare system, compensation system) to yield the most promising outcomes [24].

The findings of this study also have implications for researchers in the field of rehabilitation. Experimental scientists have expressed concern regarding the reliability of single-item measures, which is generally treated as a necessary condition for experimental credibility by researchers, reviewers and editors. However, many researchers opt for single-item measures due to their numerous practical advantages. For example, single-item measures have fewer survey administration costs, are completed easily by respondents of varying education levels, do not contain redundant items that can contribute to participant burden, and require a shorter time commitment, thereby leading to lower refusal and less incomplete data. In this study we were able to estimate the reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations using two prospective datasets. Based on our results, it is acceptable to use this single-item measure of recovery expectations when the research question or assessment goal is to predict work disability.

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study are the use of two large prospective samples of individuals of musculoskeletal pain conditions, which allowed us to make inference and generalize to a same population. In both samples, the outcome was assessed at 1-year follow-up which allowed us to evaluate the prospective validity of the single-item measure of recovery expectations. This study also opted for a statistical approach that allowed us to utilize collected data to quickly address a relevant scientific question. The present research effort does have several limitations. First, the samples of individuals with work-related musculoskeletal injury and whiplash injury may limit the generalizability of the findings to other musculoskeletal pain conditions. Other sociodemographic variables may also limit the generalizability of the findings since the samples were relatively homogenous and similar in age. Second, it is possible bias exists due to the self-report data. Third, there was no opportunity to compare the ratings on the single-item measure of recovery expectations over time (as a measure of test-retest reliability). Last, internal consistency cannot be computed for a single-item measure. We believe our assessments of test-retest and parallel reliability, as well as construct and predictive validity provide a sufficient analysis of the psychometric properties of this single-item measure of recovery expectations.

This study established the reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations in the context of work disability. Our results offer insight into the relevance of assessing recovery expectations after musculoskeletal pain conditions using a simple question, such as “How likely is it that you will return to work?”. This single-item measure of recovery expectations provides a brief, low cost, low burden tool to quickly identify individuals who are twice as likely to be off work following an injury [6]. In addition to increasing confidence in research using single-item measures of recovery expectations, these results meet the needs of clinicians who are assessing multiple predictors of pain and disability in a context where time and cost are of the essence. This study represents a step towards more practice-based evidence and will contribute to the prevention of work disability.

Conflict interests: This work was supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec, Santé (JSC) and Société et culture (JSC). The authors JSC, DB, LM and MJLS have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author Contributions: JSC, DB and MJLS designed the study. DB performed the statistical analyses. JSC wrote the paper. MJLS contributed to data collection. DB, LM and MJLS contributed to reviewing and revising of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding: This research was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec, Sante and Culture et societe (JSC)

Data Availability: The datasets are available on reasonable request.

Code Availability: Not applicable.

Conflict of interest: JSC, DB, LM and MJLS declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval: The research programs were approved by the research ethics committee of the Centre de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Readaptation du Montreal Metropolitaine.

Consent to Participate: Not required.

Consent for Publication: Not required.

Abedi M, Gane E, Aplin T, Zerguine H, Johnston V. Barriers and Facilitators Associated with Return to Work Following Minor to Serious Road Traffic Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Systematic Review. J Occup Rehabil 2022;32(1):13-26.
Beck A, Rush A, Shaw B, Emery G. Cognitive behavioral therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press, 1979.
Beck A, Steer R, Brown G. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II Second Edition. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation, 1996.
Beemster TT, van Bennekom CAM, van Velzen JM, Frings-Dresen MHW, Reneman MF. Vocational Rehabilitation with or without Work Module for Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Sick Leave from Work: Longitudinal Impact on Work Participation. J Occup Rehabil 2021;31(1):72-83.
Cancelliere C, Donovan J, Stochkendahl MJ, Biscardi M, Ammendolia C, Myburgh C, Cassidy JD. Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiropr Man Therap 2016;24(1):32.
Carriere JS, Donayre-Pimental S, Bou-Saba S, Boehme B, Berbiche D, Coutu MF, Durand MJ. Recovery expectations can be assessed with single-item measures: Findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of recovery expectations on return-to-work outcomes following musculoskeletal pain conditions. Pain 2022;In Press.
Carriere JS, Martel MO, Meints SM, Cornelius MC, Edwards RR. What do you expect? Catastrophizing mediates associations between expectancies and pain-facilitatory processes. Eur J Pain 2019;23(4):800-811.
Carriere JS, Thibault P, Adams H, Milioto M, Ditto B, Sullivan MJL. Expectancies mediate the relationship between perceived injustice and return to work following whiplash injury: A 1-year prospective study. Eur J Pain 2017;21(7):1234-1242.
Carriere JS, Thibault P, Milioto M, Sullivan MJL. Expectancies Mediate the Relations Among Pain Catastrophizing, Fear of Movement, and Return to Work Outcomes After Whiplash Injury. J Pain 2015;16(12):1280-1287.
Carriere JS, Thibault P, Sullivan MJ. The Mediating Role of Recovery Expectancies on the Relation Between Depression and Return-to-Work. J Occup Rehabil 2015;25(2):348-356.
Cho B, Yang J, Kim S, Yang DW, Park M, Chey J. The validity and reliability of a Computerized Dementia Screening Test developed in Korea. J Neurol Sci 2002;203-204:109-114.
Cormier S, Lavigne GL, Choiniere M, Rainville P. Expectations predict chronic pain treatment outcomes. Pain 2016;157(2):329-338.
Durand M-J, Vézina N, Richard M-C. Concept of Margin of Manoeuvre in Return to Work. In: IZ Schultz, RJ Gatchel, editors. Handbook of Return to Work: From Research to Practice. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2016. pp. 53-65.
Ebrahim S, Malachowski C, Kamal El Din M, Mulla SM, Montoya L, Bance S, Busse JW. Measures of patients' expectations about recovery: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil 2015;25(1):240-255.
Elphinston RA, Thibault P, Carriere JS, Rainville P, Sullivan MJL. Cross-sectional and Prospective Correlates of Recovery Expectancies in the Rehabilitation of Whiplash Injury. Clin J Pain 2018;34(4):306-312.
Hallegraeff JM, Krijnen WP, van der Schans CP, de Greef MH. Expectations about recovery from acute non-specific low back pain predict absence from usual work due to chronic low back pain: a systematic review. J Physiother 2012;58(3):165-172.
Harris CA, D'Eon JL. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory--second edition (BDI-II) in individuals with chronic pain. Pain 2008;137(3):609-622.
Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF. Psychosocial predictors of failure to return to work in non-chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med 2008;65(8):507-517.
Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF, O'Halloran P. Systematic review of the ability of recovery expectations to predict outcomes in non-chronic non-specific low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 2009;19(1):25-40.
Jansen J, van Ooijen R, Koning PWC, Boot CRL, Brouwer S. The Role of the Employer in Supporting Work Participation of Workers with Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review Using an Interdisciplinary Approach. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2021;31(4):916-949.
Kapoor S, Shaw WS, Pransky G, Patterson W. Initial patient and clinician expectations of return to work after acute onset of work-related low back pain. J Occup Environ Med 2006;48(11):1173-1180.
Kori SH. Kinesiophobia : a new view of chronic pain behavior. Pain Manage 1990;3:35-43.
Leeuw M, Goossens ME, Linton SJ, Crombez G, Boersma K, Vlaeyen JW. The fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain: current state of scientific evidence. J Behav Med 2007;30(1):77-94.
Loisel P, Durand M, Berthelette D, Vézina N, Raymond Baril D, Larivière C, Tremblay C. Disability prevention: the new paradigm of management of occupational back pain. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2001;9:251-260.
McCracken LM, Zayfert C, Gross RT. The Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale: development and validation of a scale to measure fear of pain. Pain 1992;50(1):67-73.
Nieminen LK, Pyysalo LM, Kankaanpää MJ. Prognostic factors for pain chronicity in low back pain: a systematic review. Pain Rep 2021;6(1):e919.
Nijs J, Lluch Girbes E, Lundberg M, Malfliet A, Sterling M. Exercise therapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain: Innovation by altering pain memories. Man Ther 2015;20(1):216-220.
Page MG, Ziemianski D, Martel MO, Shir Y. Development and validation of the Treatment Expectations in Chronic Pain Scale. Br J Health Psychol 2019;24(3):610-628.
Perrot S, Allaert FA, Concas V, Laroche F. "When will I recover?" A national survey on patients' and physicians' expectations concerning the recovery time for acute back pain. Eur Spine J 2009;18(3):419-429.
Sterling M, Keefe FJ. Physical rehabilitation research and pain science. Pain 2021;162(11):2621-2624.
Sullivan M, Tanzer M, Reardon G, Amirault D, Dunbar M, Stanish W. The role of presurgical expectancies in predicting pain and function one year following total knee arthroplasty. Pain 2011;152(10):2287-2293.
Sullivan MJ, Adams H, Horan S, Maher D, Boland D, Gross R. The role of perceived injustice in the experience of chronic pain and disability: scale development and validation. J Occup Rehabil 2008;18(3):249-261.
Sullivan MJ, Thorn B, Haythornthwaite JA, Keefe F, Martin M, Bradley LA, Lefebvre JC. Theoretical perspectives on the relation between catastrophizing and pain. Clin J Pain 2001;17(1):52-64.
Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. . Psychol Assess 1995;7(4):524-532.
Sullivan V, Wilson MN, Gross DP, Jensen OK, Shaw WS, Steenstra IA, Hayden JA. Expectations for Return to Work Predict Return to Work in Workers with Low Back Pain: An Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-Analysis. J Occup Rehabil 2022;32(4):575-590.
Turner JA, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Sheppard L, Wickizer TM, Wu R, Gluck JV, Egan K. Worker recovery expectations and fear-avoidance predict work disability in a population-based workers' compensation back pain sample. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31(6):682-689.
Vlaeyen JW, Kole-Snijders AM, Rotteveel AM, Ruesink R, Heuts PH. The role of fear of movement/(re)injury in pain disability. J Occup Rehabil 1995;5(4):235-252.
Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 1993;52(2):157-168.
Wanous JP, Hudy MJ. Single-Item Reliability: A Replication and Extension. Organizational Research Methods 2001;4(4):361-375.
Zijlmans EAO, van der Ark LA, Tijmstra J, Sijtsma K. Methods for Estimating Item-Score Reliability. Appl Psychol Meas 2018;42(7):553-570.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations in rehabilitation research and practice

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Conclusion

Introduction

Methods and design

Datasets

Measures

Demographic information and follow-up interview

Pain-related psychological factors

Data analysis

Results

Test-retest reliability

Parallel-form reliability

Construct validity

Predictive validity

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1