Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/23834
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLauwerier, Emelienen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCaes, Lineen_UK
dc.contributor.authorVan Damme, Stefaanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorGoubert, Liesbeten_UK
dc.contributor.authorRossell, Yvesen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCrombez, Geerten_UK
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-02T03:43:55Z-
dc.date.available2016-11-02T03:43:55Z-
dc.date.issued2015-04en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/23834-
dc.description.abstractInstruments to assess chronic pain acceptance have been developed and used. However, whether and to what extent the content of the items reflects acceptance remain uninvestigated. A content analysis of 13 instruments that aim to measure acceptance of chronic pain was performed. A coding scheme was used that consisted of 3 categories representing the key components of acceptance, that is, disengagement from pain control, pain willingness, and engagement in activities other than pain control. The coding scheme consisted of 5 additional categories in order to code items that do not represent acceptance, that is, controlling pain, pain costs, pain benefits, unclear, and no fit. Two coders rated to what extent the items of acceptance instruments belonged to one or more of these categories. Results indicated that acceptance categories were not equally represented in the acceptance instruments. Of note, some instruments had many items in the category controlling pain. Further analyses revealed that the meaning of acceptance differs among different instruments and among different versions of the same instrument. This study illustrates the importance of content validity when developing and evaluating self-report instruments.  Perspective  This article investigated the content validity of questionnaires designed to measure acceptance in individuals with chronic pain. Knowledge about the content of the instruments will provide further insight into the features of acceptance and how to measure them. en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherElsevieren_UK
dc.relationLauwerier E, Caes L, Van Damme S, Goubert L, Rossell Y & Crombez G (2015) Acceptance: What's in a name? A content analysis of acceptance instruments in individuals with chronic pain. Journal of Pain, 16 (4), pp. 306-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.001en_UK
dc.rightsAccepted refereed manuscript of: Lauwerier E, Caes L, Van Damme S, Goubert L, Rossell Y & Crombez G (2015) Acceptance: What's in a name? A content analysis of acceptance instruments in individuals with chronic pain, Journal of Pain, 16 (4), pp. 306-317. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.001 © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectAcceptanceen_UK
dc.subjectchronic painen_UK
dc.subjectquestionnairesen_UK
dc.subjectcontent validityen_UK
dc.titleAcceptance: What's in a name? A content analysis of acceptance instruments in individuals with chronic painen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.001en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid25584430en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleJournal of Painen_UK
dc.citation.issn1526-5900en_UK
dc.citation.volume16en_UK
dc.citation.issue4en_UK
dc.citation.spage306en_UK
dc.citation.epage317en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusAM - Accepted Manuscripten_UK
dc.author.emailline.caes@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date10/01/2015en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Leuven-Limburgen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPsychologyen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationGhent Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationGhent Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationGhent Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationGhent Universityen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000352748100002en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84926417738en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid559312en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0001-7355-0706en_UK
dc.date.accepted2015-01-10en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-01-10en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2016-07-13en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionAMen_UK
local.rioxx.authorLauwerier, Emelien|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCaes, Line|0000-0001-7355-0706en_UK
local.rioxx.authorVan Damme, Stefaan|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorGoubert, Liesbet|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRossell, Yves|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCrombez, Geert|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2016-07-15en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/|2016-07-15|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameLauwerier Caes et al. 2015.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1526-5900en_UK
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Lauwerier Caes et al. 2015.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version676.82 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.