Pain Medicine

Using Item Response Theory (IRT) for Developing and Evaluating the Pain Impact Questionnaire (PIQ‐6™)

Janine Becker PhD, Dipl‐Psych

Corresponding Author

QualityMetric Incorporated, Waltham, Massachusetts, and

Lincoln, Rhode Island;

Health Assessment Laboratory, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA;

Department of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Charité Berlin, Humboldt University Hospital, Germany;

Janine Becker, PhD, Dipl‐Psych, Department of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Charité Berlin, Humboldt University Hospital, Luisenstraße 13A, 10117 Berlin, Germany. Tel: 011‐49‐30‐450‐553492; Fax: 011‐49‐30‐450‐553989; E‐mail:

janine.becker@charite.de

. Search for more papers by this author
Carolyn Schwartz ScD

DeltaQuest Foundation, Concord, Massachusetts;

Division of Research, Department of Orthopedics, New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;

Search for more papers by this author
Jakob Bue Bjorner MD, PhD

QualityMetric Incorporated, Waltham, Massachusetts, and

Health Assessment Laboratory, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA;

National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 15 September 2007
Cited by: 2
Get access to the full version of this article.View access options below.

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials.

If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, .

ABSTRACT

Objectives. To describe the development and evaluation of the Pain Impact Questionnaire (PIQ‐6TM), a six‐item measure of pain severity and impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) domains.

Participants. Two general US population samples (N = 829 and N = 7,025) and one chronic pain patient sample (N = 350) were included.

Methods. The PIQ‐6TM was developed using conventional and item response theory (IRT) methods in four steps: 1) initial selection and development of items based on results from a previously developed Bodily Pain item bank; 2) final item selection based on new data and investigations of unidimensionality, differential item functioning (DIF), and IRT modeling; 3) development of scoring algorithms, population norms, and cross‐calibrations; and 4) psychometric evaluation.

Results. Six items on pain intensity and impact satisfied requirements of unidimensionality and lack of DIF and could be scored using IRT methods. The PIQ‐6 showed good internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha = 0.94) and good construct validity. Convergent validity was supported by strong correlations with pain severity scales (visual analog and numerical rating scales; r = 0.81–0.84); discriminant validity was suggested by correlations with the SF‐8™ Health Survey Physical and Mental Component Summary measures (r = −0.77; r = −0.32, respectively), significant mean score differences between chronic pain patients and the general population, and between patients differing in self‐reported medical conditions (P < 0.001).

Conclusion. The PIQ‐6 is a brief, precise questionnaire available in a paper‐and‐pencil version and a computerized version that includes scoring and feedback software. It may facilitate large‐scale, inexpensive, precise, and norm‐based pain assessment and monitoring in a wide variety of settings (e.g., homes, clinics, offices).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.