Discriminative Validity of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists

Nicolaas D. Eland, Alice Kvåle, Raymond W.J.G. Ostelo, Henrica C.W. De Vet, Liv I. Strand

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) for Physical Therapists aims to measure clinicians' biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations regarding nonspecific low back pain. Objective The objective of this study was to assess whether the PABS can differentiate between subgroups of physical therapists hypothesized to differ in treatment orientations. Design This study was a cross-sectional survey. Methods The PABS was completed by 662 Norwegian physical therapists with a diversity of professional backgrounds. Twenty-four a priori hypotheses on expected differences in PABS scores were formulated. Sufficient discriminative ability was defined as a minimum of 75% confirmed hypotheses. Hypotheses on differences in scores were tested for the biomedical and biopsychosocial subscales separately as well as for combinations of the 2 subscales, representing responders with high biomedical and low biopsychosocial PABS scores and vice versa. Results Of the 24 hypotheses, only 15 (62.5%) were confirmed. Between-group differences concerning the separate subscales were small, varying from 0.63 to 1.70 scale points, representing values up to 6.0% of the total subscale ranges. Between-group differences were larger when combined subscales were used, varying from 1.80 to 6.70 points, representing values up to 25.1% of the total subscale ranges. Despite little spread in scores, 24% of respondents demonstrated extreme attitudes. Limitations The lack of convincing scientific evidence from previous research on differences in attitudes and beliefs between physical therapists was a limitation for the formulation of hypotheses. Conclusions Discriminative validity of separate subscales of the PABS was not supported. Combining the 2 subscales into global treatment attitudes enabled better discrimination. Little spread in biomedical and biopsychosocial orientations explains why more than one-third of the hypotheses were not confirmed. Either Norwegian physical therapists are basically similar in their treatment orientation or the PABS is not able to detect any differences between them.

LanguageEnglish
Pages339-353
Number of pages15
JournalPhysical Therapy
Volume99
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Physical Therapists
Pain
Aptitude
Therapeutics
Low Back Pain
Cross-Sectional Studies

Cite this

Eland, N. D., Kvåle, A., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., De Vet, H. C. W., & Strand, L. I. (2019). Discriminative Validity of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists. Physical Therapy, 99(3), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy139
Eland, Nicolaas D. ; Kvåle, Alice ; Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G. ; De Vet, Henrica C.W. ; Strand, Liv I. / Discriminative Validity of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists. In: Physical Therapy. 2019 ; Vol. 99, No. 3. pp. 339-353.
@article{d5f16b47974942c2b734f683a6f7e0f5,
title = "Discriminative Validity of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists",
abstract = "Background The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) for Physical Therapists aims to measure clinicians' biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations regarding nonspecific low back pain. Objective The objective of this study was to assess whether the PABS can differentiate between subgroups of physical therapists hypothesized to differ in treatment orientations. Design This study was a cross-sectional survey. Methods The PABS was completed by 662 Norwegian physical therapists with a diversity of professional backgrounds. Twenty-four a priori hypotheses on expected differences in PABS scores were formulated. Sufficient discriminative ability was defined as a minimum of 75{\%} confirmed hypotheses. Hypotheses on differences in scores were tested for the biomedical and biopsychosocial subscales separately as well as for combinations of the 2 subscales, representing responders with high biomedical and low biopsychosocial PABS scores and vice versa. Results Of the 24 hypotheses, only 15 (62.5{\%}) were confirmed. Between-group differences concerning the separate subscales were small, varying from 0.63 to 1.70 scale points, representing values up to 6.0{\%} of the total subscale ranges. Between-group differences were larger when combined subscales were used, varying from 1.80 to 6.70 points, representing values up to 25.1{\%} of the total subscale ranges. Despite little spread in scores, 24{\%} of respondents demonstrated extreme attitudes. Limitations The lack of convincing scientific evidence from previous research on differences in attitudes and beliefs between physical therapists was a limitation for the formulation of hypotheses. Conclusions Discriminative validity of separate subscales of the PABS was not supported. Combining the 2 subscales into global treatment attitudes enabled better discrimination. Little spread in biomedical and biopsychosocial orientations explains why more than one-third of the hypotheses were not confirmed. Either Norwegian physical therapists are basically similar in their treatment orientation or the PABS is not able to detect any differences between them.",
author = "Eland, {Nicolaas D.} and Alice Kv{\aa}le and Ostelo, {Raymond W.J.G.} and {De Vet}, {Henrica C.W.} and Strand, {Liv I.}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ptj/pzy139",
language = "English",
volume = "99",
pages = "339--353",
journal = "Physical Therapy",
issn = "0031-9023",
publisher = "American Physical Therapy Association",
number = "3",

}

Eland, ND, Kvåle, A, Ostelo, RWJG, De Vet, HCW & Strand, LI 2019, 'Discriminative Validity of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists', Physical Therapy, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 339-353. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy139

Discriminative Validity of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists. / Eland, Nicolaas D.; Kvåle, Alice; Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G.; De Vet, Henrica C.W.; Strand, Liv I.

In: Physical Therapy, Vol. 99, No. 3, 01.03.2019, p. 339-353.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discriminative Validity of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists

AU - Eland, Nicolaas D.

AU - Kvåle, Alice

AU - Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G.

AU - De Vet, Henrica C.W.

AU - Strand, Liv I.

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Background The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) for Physical Therapists aims to measure clinicians' biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations regarding nonspecific low back pain. Objective The objective of this study was to assess whether the PABS can differentiate between subgroups of physical therapists hypothesized to differ in treatment orientations. Design This study was a cross-sectional survey. Methods The PABS was completed by 662 Norwegian physical therapists with a diversity of professional backgrounds. Twenty-four a priori hypotheses on expected differences in PABS scores were formulated. Sufficient discriminative ability was defined as a minimum of 75% confirmed hypotheses. Hypotheses on differences in scores were tested for the biomedical and biopsychosocial subscales separately as well as for combinations of the 2 subscales, representing responders with high biomedical and low biopsychosocial PABS scores and vice versa. Results Of the 24 hypotheses, only 15 (62.5%) were confirmed. Between-group differences concerning the separate subscales were small, varying from 0.63 to 1.70 scale points, representing values up to 6.0% of the total subscale ranges. Between-group differences were larger when combined subscales were used, varying from 1.80 to 6.70 points, representing values up to 25.1% of the total subscale ranges. Despite little spread in scores, 24% of respondents demonstrated extreme attitudes. Limitations The lack of convincing scientific evidence from previous research on differences in attitudes and beliefs between physical therapists was a limitation for the formulation of hypotheses. Conclusions Discriminative validity of separate subscales of the PABS was not supported. Combining the 2 subscales into global treatment attitudes enabled better discrimination. Little spread in biomedical and biopsychosocial orientations explains why more than one-third of the hypotheses were not confirmed. Either Norwegian physical therapists are basically similar in their treatment orientation or the PABS is not able to detect any differences between them.

AB - Background The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) for Physical Therapists aims to measure clinicians' biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations regarding nonspecific low back pain. Objective The objective of this study was to assess whether the PABS can differentiate between subgroups of physical therapists hypothesized to differ in treatment orientations. Design This study was a cross-sectional survey. Methods The PABS was completed by 662 Norwegian physical therapists with a diversity of professional backgrounds. Twenty-four a priori hypotheses on expected differences in PABS scores were formulated. Sufficient discriminative ability was defined as a minimum of 75% confirmed hypotheses. Hypotheses on differences in scores were tested for the biomedical and biopsychosocial subscales separately as well as for combinations of the 2 subscales, representing responders with high biomedical and low biopsychosocial PABS scores and vice versa. Results Of the 24 hypotheses, only 15 (62.5%) were confirmed. Between-group differences concerning the separate subscales were small, varying from 0.63 to 1.70 scale points, representing values up to 6.0% of the total subscale ranges. Between-group differences were larger when combined subscales were used, varying from 1.80 to 6.70 points, representing values up to 25.1% of the total subscale ranges. Despite little spread in scores, 24% of respondents demonstrated extreme attitudes. Limitations The lack of convincing scientific evidence from previous research on differences in attitudes and beliefs between physical therapists was a limitation for the formulation of hypotheses. Conclusions Discriminative validity of separate subscales of the PABS was not supported. Combining the 2 subscales into global treatment attitudes enabled better discrimination. Little spread in biomedical and biopsychosocial orientations explains why more than one-third of the hypotheses were not confirmed. Either Norwegian physical therapists are basically similar in their treatment orientation or the PABS is not able to detect any differences between them.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061986728&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061986728&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ptj/pzy139

DO - 10.1093/ptj/pzy139

M3 - Article

VL - 99

SP - 339

EP - 353

JO - Physical Therapy

T2 - Physical Therapy

JF - Physical Therapy

SN - 0031-9023

IS - 3

ER -