The patient goal priority questionnaire is moderately reproducible in people with persistent musculoskeletal pain

Physical Therapy

Volumn 89, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1226-1234

  Åsenlöf, Pernilla ^a   Siljebäck, Kim ^b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b reAgera Clinics   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MOTIVATION; MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT GOAL PRIORITY QUESTIONNAIRE; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION; PHYSIOTHERAPIST; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF REPORT; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY;

FEMALE; GOALS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 70449672613     PISSN: 00319023     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20090030     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Kazdin AE. The meanings and measurement of clinical significance. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67:332-339.
2. Turk D, Dworkin R, Allen R, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2003;106:337-345. (Pubitemid 37505881)
3. Turk D, Dworkin R, Revivki D, et al. Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain. 2008; 137:276-285. (Pubitemid 351853291)
4. Dworkin R, Turk D, Farrar J, et al. Topical review and recommendations-core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113:9-19.
5. Kazdin AE. Almost clinically significant (p<.10): current measures may only approach clinical significance. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2001;8:455-462.
6. Jolles M, Buchbinder R, Beaton D. A study compared nine patient-specific indices for musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:791-801. (Pubitemid 40973789)
7. Law M, Babtiste S, McColl M, et al. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1990;57:82-87.
8. Stratford PW, Gill C, Westaway MD, Binkley JM. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient-specific measure. Physiother Can. 1995;47:258-263.
9. Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Buchannan W, et al. The MACTAR patient preference disability questionnaire: an individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1987;14:446-451. (Pubitemid 17121196)
10. Browne J, O'Boyle C, McGee H, et al. Development of a direct weighting procedure for quality of life domains. Qual Life Res. 1997;6:301-309. (Pubitemid 27294724)
11. Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27:331-338.
12. Chatman AB, Hyams SP, Neel MJ, et al. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther. 1997;77:820-829.
13. Cleland J, Fritz J, Whitman J, Palmer J. The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and Patient-Specific Functional Scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine. 2006;31:598-602.
14. Åsenlöf P, Denison E, Lindberg P. Behavioural goal assessment in patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain. Physiother Theory Pract. 2004;20:243-254. (Pubitemid 40052620)
15. Åsenlöf P, Denison E, Lindberg P. Individually tailored treatment targeting activity, motor behavior, and cognition reduces pain-related disability: a randomized controlled trial in patients with musculoskeletal pain. J Pain. 2005;6:588-603. (Pubitemid 43300597)
16. Åsenlöf P, Denison E, Lindberg P. Idiographic outcome analyses of the clinical significance of two interventions for patients with musculoskeletal pain. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44:947-965. (Pubitemid 43850417)
17. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: WH Freeman & Co; 1997.
18. Åsenlöf P, Denison E, Lindberg P. Individually tailored treatment targeting motor behavior, cognition, and disability: 2 experimental single case studies of patients with recurrent and persistent pain in primary health care. Phys Ther. 2005;85:1061-1077. (Pubitemid 41396006)
19. Chibnall JT, Tait RC. The Pain Disability Index: factor structure and normative data. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:1082-1086.
20. Lexell J. How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84:719-723. (Pubitemid 41248466)
21. Jakobsson U, Westergren A. Statistical methods for assessing agreement for ordinal data. Scand J Caring Sci. 2005;19:427-431. (Pubitemid 43943217)
22. Ostelo R, de Vet H. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005;19:593-607. (Pubitemid 40790489)
23. VassarStats. Available at: http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/kappa.html. Accessed June 26, 2009.
24. Domholdt E. Rehabilitation Research. Principles and Applications. 3rd ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders; 2005.
25. Verkerk G, Wolf M, Louwers A, et al. The reproducibility and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in parents of children with disabilities. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:980-988. (Pubitemid 46940894)