↓ Skip to main content

Initial psychometric validation of the questionnaire on pain caused by spasticity (QPS)

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Initial psychometric validation of the questionnaire on pain caused by spasticity (QPS)
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0804-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thorin L. Geister, Donald M. Bushnell, Jie Yang, Yuqiong Zhang, Mona L. Martin, Alev Heilbronn, Zhenhuan Liu

Abstract

The Questionnaire on Pain caused by Spasticity (QPS) is a modular patient- and observer-reported outcome measure of spasticity-related pain (SRP) in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Originally developed for an English-speaking population, we conducted a psychometric validation of a recently developed Chinese language version of the QPS. This was a prospective, observational study involving 137 children/adolescents with CP and upper and/or lower limb spasticity and their parents at three sites in China. Six QPS modules were used, three each for upper and lower limb SRP assessment: a patient self-report module; an interviewer-administered module used by site staff based on the cognitive, communicative, and motor abilities of a patient; and a parent/caregiver module administered for all children as an observer-reported outcome to complement the patient-reported outcome. If no assessment by the patient was possible because of age or cognitive impairments, only the parent/caregiver module was completed. Two visits with a 3-week interval provided data to evaluate and establish administrative ease of use, scoring of the QPS (factor analyses, Rasch analyses), reliability (Cronbach's α, intraclass correlation coefficient), validity (correlations with quality of life [PedsQL™], motor impairment [Gross Motor Function Classification System, Gross Motor Function Measure-66, Manual Ability Classification System], and spasticity [Ashworth Scale, Modified Tardieu Scale]). For most children, clinic staff reported no difficulties associated with general QPS use or deciding which module to use. Children (and parents) who reported more demanding activities also reported higher levels of associated SRP (or observed SRP behavior). Activity-related SRP items were combined for a total QPS score. Cronbach's α was low for child self-report, but was acceptable for interviewer-administered and parent reports on SRP. Test-retest reliability was high for all modules. Moderate-strong associations were frequently seen between QPS and quality of life, and were particularly strong in the child self-report group. Relatively weak associations were observed between QPS and motor impairment and spasticity. This first study was successful in providing initial evidence for the psychometric properties. Clinic staff were able to administer the QPS modules easily, and both children and parents were able to complete the designated QPS appropriately.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 44 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Psychology 8 7%
Sports and Recreations 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 47 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,577,751
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,709
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,067
of 438,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#59
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.