Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Pain Care Quality Surveys (PainCQ©)
Article first published online: 3 DEC 2012
© Health Research and Educational Trust
Health Services Research
Volume 48, Issue 3, pages 1018–1038, June 2013
How to Cite
Pett, M. A., Beck, S. L., Guo, J.-W., Towsley, G. L., Brant, J. M., Lavoie Smith, E. M., Berry, P. H. and Donaldson, G. W. (2013), Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Pain Care Quality Surveys (PainCQ©). Health Services Research, 48: 1018–1038. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12014
- Issue published online: 9 MAY 2013
- Article first published online: 3 DEC 2012
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Interdisciplinary Nursing Quality Research Initiative. Grant Number: 58299
- Oncology Nursing Society Foundation/Oncology Nursing Certification Corporation
- Pain care quality;
To examine the reliability and validity and to decrease the battery of items in the Pain Care Quality (PainCQ©) Surveys.
Data Sources/Study Setting
Patient-reported data were collected prospectively from 337 hospitalized adult patients with pain on medical/surgical oncology units in four hospitals in three states.
This methodological study used a cross-sectional survey design. Each consenting patient completed two PainCQ© Surveys, the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and demographic questions. Clinical data were extracted from the medical record.
Data Collection/Extraction Methods
All data were double entered into a Microsoft Access database, cleaned, and then extracted into SPSS, AMOS, and Mplus for analysis.
Confirmatory factor analysis using Structural Equation Modeling supported the initial factor structure. Modification indices guided decisions that resulted in a superior, parsimonious model for the PainCQ-Interdisciplinary Care Survey (six items, two subscales) and the PainCQ-Nursing Care Survey (14 items, three subscales). Cronbach's alpha coefficients all exceeded .80.
Cumulative evidence supports the reliability and validity of the companion PainCQ© Surveys in hospitalized patients with pain in the oncology setting. The tools may be relevant in both clinical research and quality improvement. Future research is recommended in other populations, settings, and with more diverse groups.