Hazırlanıyor...
Fuat AYDOĞDU

Fuat AYDOĞDU

Uzman Psikolojik Danışman

🇬🇧 EN
Sayıya Dön
Araştırma Makalesi Humanistic Perspective

Turkish Version of The Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain Scale (ECIPS): Validity and Reliability Study Among Patients With Cancer

Neşe Mercan Didem Ayhan Reyhan Doğan Çiğdem Yüksel
Akademik Künye
Dergi
Humanistic Perspective
Cilt · Sayı · Sayfa
Cilt 4 · Sayı 1 · s. 177–192
Tarih
28 Şubat 2022
DOI
10.47793/hp.1037210
Özet

Cognitive intrusion is a critical characteristic of pain. The aim of the present study was to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain Scale developed by Attridge et al. in 2015. This methodological study conducted in the hematology clinic of an educational research hospital between February 2018 and June 2018 included 120 patients aged between 18 and 65 years. The study data were collected with the Sociodemographic Characteristics Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain Scale (ECIPS). The Cronbach’s α coefficient of ECIPS was 0.96 and item-total correlation coefficients ranged between 0.79 - 0.89 (p < 0.01) and factor loadings were ranged between 0.82 - 0.91. ECIPS had a very strong correlation with PCS (r = 0.835, p < 0.001). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the scale has good fit in revealing a single-factor structure. Item analysis, internal consistency, test-retest, face, criterion, construct validity and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that the Turkish version of the ECIPS was a valid and reliable tool and could be used to assess the level of cognitive intrusion of pain.

Anahtar Kelimeler
kanser ağrı bilişsel intrüzyon geçerlilik güvenilirlik
Abstract

Cognitive intrusion is a critical characteristic of pain. The aim of the present study was to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain Scale developed by Attridge et al. in 2015. This methodological study conducted in the hematology clinic of an educational research hospital between February 2018 and June 2018 included 120 patients aged between 18 and 65 years. The study data were collected with the Sociodemographic Characteristics Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain Scale (ECIPS). The Cronbach’s α coefficient of ECIPS was 0.96 and item-total correlation coefficients ranged between 0.79 - 0.89 (p < 0.01) and factor loadings were ranged between 0.82 - 0.91. ECIPS had a very strong correlation with PCS (r = 0.835, p < 0.001). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the scale has good fit in revealing a single-factor structure. Item analysis, internal consistency, test-retest, face, criterion, construct validity and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that the Turkish version of the ECIPS was a valid and reliable tool and could be used to assess the level of cognitive intrusion of pain.

Keywords
cancer pain cognitive intrusion validity reliability
Kaynakça

  1. Attridge, N., Crombez, G., Van Ryckeghem, D., Keogh, E., & Eccleston, C. (2015). The Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain: Scale development and validation. Pain, 156(10), 1978–1990. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000257

  2. Babadağ, B., & Balcı Alparslan, G. (2017). The pain beliefs of nursing students. STED / Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Dergisi, 26(6), 244-250. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sted/issue/33871/375035

  3. Berk, H. O., & Bahadir, G. (2007). The experience of chronic pain and pain beliefs. The journal of the Turkish Society of Algology, 19(4), 5–15.

  4. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A Primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6(June), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

  5. Caraceni, A., & Shkodra, M. (2019). Cancer pain assessment and classification. Cancers, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11040510

  6. Cetin, A. A., Bektas, H., & Ozdogan, M. (2016). The west haven yale multidimensional pain inventory: reliability and validity of the Turkish version in individuals with cancer. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 20(April), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2015.03.007

  7. Dahlke, L. A. M., Sable, J. J., & Andrasik, F. (2017). Behavioral therapy: emotion and pain, a common anatomical background. Neurological Sciences, 38, 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-2928-3

  8. Dueñas, M., Ojeda, B., Salazar, A., Mico, J. A., & Failde, I. (2016). A review of chronic pain impact on patients, their social environment and the health care system. Journal of Pain Research, 9, 457–467. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S105892

  9. Erdoğan, S., Nahcivan, N., & Esin, M. N. (Eds.). (2015). Research in Nursing: Process, Application and Criticism (2nd ed.). Nobel Medical Bookstores

  10. Hawker, G. A., Mian, S., Kendzerska, T., & French, M. (2011). Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF. Arthritis Care and Research, 63(SUPPL. 11), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543

  11. Johannessen, L. E. F. (2019). The commensuration of pain: How nurses transform subjective experience into objective numbers. Social Science and Medicine, 233(July 2018), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.042

  12. Karatepe, H. T., Yavuz, F. K., & Turkcan, A. (2013). Ruminatif düşünme biçimi ölçeǧi’nin Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenilirliǧi. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bulteni, 23(3), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.5455/bcp.20121130122311

  13. NCCN-The National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2020). Distress During Cancer Care. https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/content/PDF/distress-patient.pdf

  14. Oral, T., & Arslan, C. (2017). Adaptation of the rumination about an Interpersonal Offense Scale into Turkish. Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research, 6(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5455/jcbpr.268374

  15. Orcan, F. (2018). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Which One to Use First? Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 9(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323

  16. Özveren, H., Faydalı, S., & Özdemir, S. (2016). Hemşirelerin ağrının farmakolojik olmayan yöntemlerle kontrolüne ilişkin bilgi ve uygulamaları. Turkish Journal of Clinics and Laboratory, 7(4), 99–105.

  17. Sipilä, R. M., Haasio, L., Meretoja, T. J., Ripatti, S., Estlander, A. M., & Kalso, E. A. (2017). Does expecting more pain make it more intense? Factors associated with the first week pain trajectories after breast cancer surgery. Pain, 158(5), 922–930. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000859

  18. Sönmez, V., & Gülderen Alacapınar, F. (2016). Preparing an Assessment Tool in Social Sciences (1st ed.). Anı Publishing.

  19. Sullivan, M. J. L., Bishop, S. R., & Pivik, J. (1995). The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 7(4), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.5

  20. Türkçapar, M.H. (2018). Bilişsel davranışçı terapi temel ilkeler ve uygulama. (12th bsk). Epsilon Yayınevi

  21. Ugurlu, M., Karakas Ugurlu, G., Erten, S., & Caykoylu, A. (2017). Validity of Turkish form of pain catastrophizing scale and modeling of the relationship between pain-related disability with pain intensity, cognitive, and emotional factors. Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750573.2017.1322672

  22. Urquhart, D. M., Phyomaung, P. P., Dubowitz, J., Fernando, S., Wluka, A. E., Raajmaakers, P., Wang, Y., & Cicuttini, F. M. (2015). Are cognitive and behavioural factors associated with knee pain? A systematic review. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 44(4), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.07.005

  23. Vakili, M. M., & Jahangiri, N. (2018). Content Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Tools in Educational, Behavioral, and Health Sciences Research. Journal of Medical Education Development, 10(28), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.29252/edcj.10.28.106

  24. Wiech, K. (2016). Cognitive processes and pain perception. ENeuro, 354(6312). https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0140-15.2016

  25. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik : Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması [Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses]. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 46(2), 74–85.