Transcultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Spanish Version of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists

• Published in: Journal of clinical medicine 2023-09, Vol.12 (18), p.6045
• Main Authors: Díaz-Fernández, Ángeles, Ortega-Martínez, Ana Raquel, Cortés-Pérez, Irene, Ibáñez-Vera, Alfonso Javier, Obrero-Gaitán, Esteban, Lomas-Vega, Rafael
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptation; Attitudes; Back pain; Care and treatment; Chronic illnesses; Clinical medicine; Clinical outcomes; Disability; Evaluation; Health surveys; Low back pain; Neurophysiology; Neurosciences; Patients; Physical therapists; Physical therapy; Practice; Quantitative psychology; Questionnaires; Sociodemographics; Surveys; Transcultural medical care; Translations
• ISSN: 2077-0383; 2077-0383
• DOI: 10.3390/jcm12186045

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the main musculoskeletal pain conditions, and it affects 23–28% of the global population. Strong evidence supports the absence of a direct relationship between the intensity of pain and tissue damage, with psychosocial factors also playing a crucial role. In this context, the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT) is a useful tool for evaluating physiotherapists’ treatment orientations and beliefs regarding the management of low back pain (LBP). It helps identify practitioners who may benefit from additional education in modern pain neuroscience. However, there is not a Spanish validation of this scale for physiotherapists. Thus, the aims of this study were to translate and culturally adapt the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT) into Spanish and to evaluate its psychometric properties. This validation study used three convenience samples of physiotherapists (PTs) (n = 22 for the pilot study, n = 529 for the validity study and n = 53 for assessing the instrument’s responsiveness). The process of translating and adapting the PABS-PT into Spanish followed international guidelines and produced a satisfactory pre-final version of the questionnaire. Factor analysis confirmed the two-factor structure of the original version, with the biomedical (BM) factor explaining 39.4% of the variance and the biopsychosocial (BPS) factor explaining 13.8% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha values were excellent for the BM factor (0.86) and good for the BPS factor (0.77), indicating good internal consistency. Test–retest reliability was excellent for both factors, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.84 for BM and 0.82 for BPS. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was acceptable for both factors (3.9 points for BM and 2.4 points for BPS). Concurrent validity was moderate and in the expected direction and had significant correlations with the Health Care Providers’ Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and Revised Neurophysiology Pain Questionnaire (R-NPQ). Sensitivity to change was demonstrated by significant improvements in both factors after an educational intervention, with medium-to-large effect sizes. The PABS-PT also showed good discriminative ability, as it was able to distinguish between physiotherapists with and without pain education. Cut-off values for the BM and BPS factors were determined. In conclusion, the translated and adapted Spanish version of the