Cross-Cultural Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire

Aims: To cross-culturally adapt the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ) to the Brazilian Portuguese language, to evaluate its psychometric properties when applied to Brazilian pain-free adults and to adults with different pain profiles, and to compare the PVAQ factor scores of different groups using a new method for calculating the overall scores for vigilance, attention to pain, and awareness of changes in pain. Methods: A total of 1,143 adults (79% women; mean ± standard deviation [SD] age of 38.56 ± 10.73 years) participated. Face validity and content validity of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the PVAQ were tested. The fit of four PVAQ models was evaluated with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the invariance of the model with the best fit was estimated across two independent samples (test sample: n = 732; validity sample: n = 411). The overall scores of the factors pain vigilance, attention to pain, and awareness of changes in pain were calculated by using the regression weight matrix obtained in the CFA. The overall scores between the four pain groups (no pain, n = 334; pain < 3 months, n = 386; recurrent pain ≥ 3 months, n = 244; continuous pain ≥ 3 months, n = 179) were compared. Results: The refined two-factor model of the PVAQ fit best to the sample (χ2/degrees of freedom = 6.095; comparative fit index = 0.926; goodness of fit index = 0.928; root mean square error of approximation = 0.083; average variance extracted > 0.45; composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha > 0.85) and presented strong invariance in independent samples. Individuals with pain presented higher scores on PVAQ factors, and the highest scores were found among individuals with continuous pain. Conclusion: The Brazilian Portuguese version of the PVAQ was found to be adequate and reliable when applied to the sample. The methodologic considerations presented could improve research on pain vigilance and help clinicians assess PVAQ factors among patients.

attention;awareness;methods;scales;validation studies

1.Pain terms: A list with definitions and notes on usage. Recommended by the IASP Subcommittee on Taxonomy. Pain 1979;6:249.

2.Merskey H, Bogduk N, International Association for the Study of Pain, Task Force on Taxonomy. Classification of Chronic Pain: Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definitions of Pain Terms, ed 2. Seattle: IASP, 1994.

3.Eccleston C, Crombez G. Pain demands attention: A cogni-tive-affective model of the interruptive function of pain. Psychol Bull 1999;125:356–366.

4.Linton SJ, Shaw WS. Impact of psychological factors in the experience of pain. Phys Ther 2011;91:700–711.

5.McCracken LM. “Attention” to pain in persons with chronic pain: A behavioral approach. Behav Ther 1997;28:271–284.

6. McWilliams LA, Asmundson GJG. Assessing individual dif-ferences in attention to pain: Psychometric properties of the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire modified for a non-clinical pain sample. Personal Individ Differ 2001; 31:239–246.

7.Vanden Bulcke C, Van Damme S, Durnez W, Crombez G. The anticipation of pain at a specific location of the body prioritizes tactile stimuli at that location. Pain 2013;154:1464–1468.

8.Mueller GR, Telch MJ, Curry J. Validation of the Body Vigilance Questionnaire [Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behaviour Therapy, Boston, 1992]. Boston: 1992.

9.Roelofs J, Peters ML, Muris P, Vlaeyen JW. Dutch version of the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire: Validity and reliability in a pain-free population. Behav Res Ther 2002;40: 1081–1090.

10.Roelofs J, Peters ML, McCracken L, Vlaeyen JW. The pain vigilance and awareness questionnaire (PVAQ): Further psy-chometric evaluation in fibromyalgia and other chronic pain syndromes. Pain 2003;101:299–306.

11.McCracken LM. A contextual analysis of attention to chron-ic pain: What the patient does with their pain might be more important than their awareness or vigilance alone. J Pain 2007;8:230–236.

12.Wong WS, McCracken LM, Fielding R. Factorial validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (ChPVAQ) in a sample of Chinese patients with chronic pain. Pain Med 2011;12:1018–1025.

13.Esteve R, Ramírez-Maestre C, López-Martínez AE. Empirical evidence of the validity of the Spanish version of the Pain Vigilance Awareness Questionnaire. Int J Behav Med 2013; 20:59–68.

14.Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Rocca B, et al. Development of the Italian version of the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire in subjects with chronic low back pain: Cross-cultural adaptation, confirmatory factor analysis, reliability and validity. Int J Behav Med 2016;23:214–223.

15.Kunz M, Capito ES, Horn-Hofmann C, et al. Psychometric properties of the German version of the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ) in pain-free samples and samples with acute and chronic pain. Int J Behav Med 2017; 24:260–271.

16.Pilar Martínez M, Miró E, Sánchez AI, Lami MJ, Prados G, Ávila D. Spanish version of the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire: Psychometric properties in a sample of women with fibromyalgia. Span J Psychol 2015;17:e105.

17.Lautenbacher S, Huber C, Kunz M, et al. Hypervigilance as predictor of postoperative acute pain: Its predictive potency compared with experimental pain sensitivity, cortisol reactivity, and affective state. Clin J Pain 2009;25:92–100.

18. Anastasi A. Psychological Testing, ed 6. New York: Macmillan, 1988.

19.Maroco J. Análise de Equações Estruturais: Fundamentos Teóricos, Software & Aplicações. Pero Pinheiro, Portugal: ReportNumber, 2014.

20.Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa. Critério de Classificação Econômica Brasil, 2015. http://www.abep.org/criterio-brasil. Accessed 8 September 2017.

21.Hair JF, Black WC, Babin B. Multivariate Data Analysis, ed 5. Madrid: Prentice Hall, 2005.

22.Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1417–1432.

23.Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 1975;28:563–575.

24.Wilson FR, Pan W, Schumsky DA. Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev 2012;45:197–210.

25.Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford, 1998.

26.Mardia KV. Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhya Ser B 1974;36:115–128.

27.Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.

28.Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res 1981;18:39–50.

29.Maroco J, Garcia-Marques T. Qual a fiabilidade do alfa de Cronbach? Questões antigas e soluções modernas?Laboratório de Psicologia 2006;4:65–90.

30.de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: Distinction between minimally detectable change and minimal-ly important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:54.

31.Harvill LM. Standard Error of Measurement. Educ Meas Issues Pract 1991;10:33–41.

32.Dimova V, Horn C, Parthum A, et al. Does severe acute pain provoke lasting changes in attentional and emotional mecha-nisms of pain-related processing? A longitudinal study. Pain 2013;154:2737–2744.