Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LE Laekeman, M.-A.
Right arrow Articles by Basler, H. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by LE Laekeman, M.-A.
Right arrow Articles by Basler, H. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists: psychometric properties of the German version

Maria-Anna LE Laekeman

School of Physiotherapy, St. Josef- und St. Elisabeth-Hospital, Clinics of the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, m.laekeman{at}cityweb.de

Helmut Sitter

Institute of Theoretical Surgery, Philipps University of Marburg

Heinz Dieter Basler

Institute for Medical Psychology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

Objectives: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the German version of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT-G). The original Dutch version is a 36-item self-report scale discriminating between a biomedical and a biopsychosocial orientation of therapists with regard to low back pain management.

Methods: The German version was generated by use of a forward—backward translation procedure. In a cross-sectional study with a repeated measurement after five weeks, a total of 424 physiotherapists got a questionnaire package with the PABS-PT-G as well as the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and patient vignettes. Item and factor analyses served to determine the psychometric properties of the scale.

Results: A total of 280 physiotherapists (response rate 79%) completed the questionnaires and a principal component analysis confirmed the two subscales of the original Dutch version. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the items belonging to the biomedical factor amounted to 0.77 and to 0.58 for the items of the biopsychosocial factor respectively. Retest reliability showed a coefficient of 0.83 for the biomedical scale and of 0.70 for the biopsychosocial scale. Validity of both subscales of the PABS-PT-G was supported by statistically significant (P<0.01) and substantial correlations with the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and with attitudes of the physiotherapists measured by patient vignettes (r between 0.37 and 0.72).

Conclusion: The PABS-PT-G appears to be a reliable and valid instrument, which is equivalent to the original Dutch version. Further research is proposed to improve the reliability of the biopsychosocial subscale.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 22, No. 6, 564-575 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215508087485
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




Advertisement