RESUMO
Introduction: The Fear of Pain Questionnaire-III (FPQ-III) is a self-assessment instrument developed specifically to measure fear based on various pain stimuli converging on three factors: severe pain, medical pain, and minor pain. It actually remains the most studied and internationally used tool even in its short versions. The aim of this work was to propose a new validation study oriented to confirm the good psychometric properties of a short model of the FPQ-III for the Italian context. Methods: A large sample of participants was recruited (n = 1,064) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) as well as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed. Measurement invariance of the FPQ-III across gender was also evaluated. In order to examine convergent validity, a further convenient sample (n = 292) was used and variables related to the individual's pain experience, locus of control and coping orientations were assessed. A final discriminant assessment using experimental manipulation through fear eliciting videos was performed. Results: The three factors structure of the 13-item version of the questionnaire was confirmed (χ2 = 148.092, CFI = 0.971, TLI = 0.962, RMSEA = 0.046, RMSEA 90% CI = 0.037-0.056) as well as the measurement invariance across gender. Item internal reliability was satisfactory. The results provided evidence of the good predictive validity of the FPQ-III and the discriminant assessment demonstrated that the instrument is suitable in detecting changes in fear of pain induced by specific situational conditions. Discussion: The scale in this short version is suitable for quickly and efficiently gathering information about the perceived intensity of such anticipatory fears that might affect even the healthy person dysfunctionally.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Fear of Pain Questionnaire-III (FPQ-III) is a widely used instrument to assess the fear of pain (FOP) in clinical and nonclinical samples. The FPQ-III has 30 items and is divided into three subscales: Severe Pain, Minor Pain and Medical Pain. Due to findings of poor fit of the original three-factor FPQ-III model, the Fear of Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (FPQ-SF) four-factor model has been suggested as an alternative. The FPQ-SF is a revised version of the FPQ-III, reduced to 20 items and subdivided into four subscales: Severe Pain, Minor Pain, Injection Pain and Dental Pain. AIMS AND METHODS: The purpose of the study was to investigate the model fit, reliability and validity of the FPQ-III and the FPQ-SF in a Norwegian nonclinical sample, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The second aim was to explore the model fit of the two scales in male and female subgroups separately, since previous studies have uncovered differences in how well the questionnaires measure FOP across sex; thus, the questionnaires might not be sex neutral. It has been argued that the FPQ-SF model is better because of the higher fit to the data across sex. To explore model fit across sex within the questionnaires, the model fit, validity and reliability were compared across sex using CFA. RESULTS: The results revealed that both models' original factor structures had poor fit. However, the FPQ-SF had a better fit overall, compared to the FPQ-III. The model fit of the two models differed across sex, with better fit for males on the FPQ-III and for females on the FPQ-SF. CONCLUSION: The FPQ-SF is a better questionnaire than the FPQ-III for measurement of FOP in Norwegian samples and across sex subgroups. However, the FPQ-III is a better questionnaire for males than for females, whereas the FPQ-SF is a better questionnaire for females than for males. The findings are discussed and directions for future investigations outlined.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate sex differences in fear of pain (FOP) measured by the Fear of Pain Questionnaire III (FPQ-III) in a nonclinical sample. The FPQ-III is a self-report inventory measuring FOP, with 30 items, divided into three subscales: Severe, Minor and Medical Pain. METHODS: A total of 185 subjects participated (49.7% females) in this study. Sex differences on overall FOP, the subscales, and at item level were examined. One-way analysis of variance tested the association between sex and FOP, measured by overall FOP and the subscales. Ordinal regression analysis enabled item-level analysis of the FPQ-III and was conducted to explore further specificity of FOP in males compared to females. RESULTS: Overall FOP and fear of Severe Pain was significantly higher in females than in males, as measured by the FPQ-Total and the FPQ-Severe. Moreover, females were more likely to report higher FOP than males on 16 items (p<0.05). Further inspection revealed that females scored significantly higher than males on all items on the Severe Pain subscale. When controlling for multiple comparisons six items reached significance (p<0.001). Five of these items belonged to the subscale Severe Pain. When controlling for overall FOP one item, also from the Severe Pain subscale, reached significance (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: There are sex differences in severe FOP, with higher FOP in females compared to males. Potential explanations are sex differences in the 1) psychosocial mechanisms of fear and anxiety, and 2) emotional reactions to and interpretation of FPQ-III Severe Pain items.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Fear of pain is highly correlated with pain report and physiological measures of arousal when pain is inflicted. The Fear of Pain Questionnaire III (FPQ-III) and The Fear of Pain Questionnaire Short Form (FPQ-SF) are self-report inventories developed for assessment of fear of pain (FOP). A previous study assessed the fit of the FPQ-III and the FPQ-SF in a Norwegian non-clinical sample and proved poor fit of both models. This inspired the idea of testing the possibility of a Norwegian FOP-model. AIMS AND METHODS: A Norwegian FOP-model was examined by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) in a sample of 1112 healthy volunteers. Then, the model fit of the FPQ-III, FPQ-SF and the Norwegian FOP-model (FPQ-NOR) were compared by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Sex neutrality was explored by examining model fit, validity and reliability of the 3 models amongst male and female subgroups. RESULTS: The EFA suggested either a 4-, a 5- or a 6-factor Norwegian FOP model. The eigenvalue criterion supported the suggested 6-factor model, which also explained most of the variance and was most interpretable. A CFA confirmed that the 6-factor model was better than the two 4- and 5-factor models. Furthermore, the CFA used to test the fit of the FPQ-NOR, the FPQ-III and the FPQ-SF showed that the FPQ-NOR had the best fit of the 3 models, both in the whole sample and in sex sub-groups. CONCLUSION: A 6-factor model for explaining and measuring FOP in Norwegian samples was identified and termed the FPQ-NOR. This new model constituted six factors and 27 items, conceptualized as Minor, Severe, Injection, Fracture, Dental, and Cut Pain. The FPQ-NOR had the best fit overall and in male- and female subgroups, probably due to cross-cultural differences in FOP. IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights the importance on exploratory analysis of FOP-instruments when applied to different countries or cultures. As the FPQ-III is widely used in both research and clinical settings, it is important to ensure that the models construct validity is high. Country specific validation of FOP in both clinical and non-clinical samples is recommended.