References of "Veirman, Elke"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailLet’s talk about pain catastrophizing measures: an item content analysis
Crombez, Geert; Depaepe, Annick; Veirman, Elke et al

in PeerJ (2020)

Background. Concerns have been raised about whether self-report measures of pain catastrophizing reflect the construct as defined in the cognitive-behavioral literature. We investigated the content of ... [more ▼]

Background. Concerns have been raised about whether self-report measures of pain catastrophizing reflect the construct as defined in the cognitive-behavioral literature. We investigated the content of these self-report measures; that is, whether items assess the construct ‘pain catastrophizing’ and not other theoretical constructs (i.e., related constructs or pain outcomes) using the discriminant content validity method. Method. Items (n = 58) of six pain catastrophizing measures were complemented with items (n = 34) from questionnaires measuring pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability. Via an online survey, 94 participants rated to what extent each item was relevant for assessing pain catastrophizing, defined as ‘‘to view or present pain or pain-related problems as considerably worse than they actually are’’ and other relevant constructs (pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability). Results. Data were analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical models. The results revealed that the items from pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability questionnaires were distinctively related to their respective constructs. This was not observed for the items from the pain catastrophizing questionnaires. The content of the pain catastrophizing measures was equally well, or even better, captured by pain-related worrying or pain-related distress. Conclusion. Based upon current findings, a recommendation may be to develop a novel pain catastrophizing questionnaire. However, we argue that pain catastrophizing cannot be assessed by self-report questionnaires. Pain catastrophizing requires contextual information, and expert judgment, which cannot be provided by self-report questionnaires. We argue for a person-centered approach, and propose to rename ‘pain catastrophizing’ measures in line with what is better measured: ‘pain-related worrying’ [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 19 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailMultidimensional screening for predicting pain problems in adults: a systematic review of screening tools and validation studies
Veirman, Elke; Van Ryckeghem, Dimitri UL; Depaepe et al

in PAIN Reports (2019)

Abstract Screening tools allowing to predict poor pain outcomes are widely used. Often these screening tools contain psychosocial risk factors. This review (1) identifies multidimensional screening tools ... [more ▼]

Abstract Screening tools allowing to predict poor pain outcomes are widely used. Often these screening tools contain psychosocial risk factors. This review (1) identifies multidimensional screening tools that include psychosocial risk factors for the development or maintenance of pain, pain-related distress, and pain-related disability across pain problems in adults, (2) evaluates the quality of the validation studies using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST), and (3) synthesizes methodological concerns. We identified 32 articles, across 42 study samples, validating 7 screening tools. All tools were developed in the context of musculoskeletal pain, most often back pain, and aimed to predict the maintenance of pain or pain-related disability, not pain-related distress. Although more recent studies design, conduct, analyze, and report according to best practices in prognosis research, risk of bias was most often moderate. Common methodological concerns were identified, related to participant selection (eg, mixed populations), predictors (eg, predictors were administered differently to predictors in the development study), outcomes (eg, overlap between predictors and outcomes), sample size and participant flow (eg, unknown or inappropriate handlin [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 20 (1 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailA componential emotion approach for the assessment of emotional awareness in youth.
Veirman, Elke; Fontaine, Johnny R. J.; Van Ryckeghem, Dimitri UL

in Psychological assessment (2016), 28(11), 1416-1426

The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children (LEAS-C) is a performance-based instrument that assesses emotional awareness in the structure of written responses to a set of real-life scenarios ... [more ▼]

The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children (LEAS-C) is a performance-based instrument that assesses emotional awareness in the structure of written responses to a set of real-life scenarios. While it is theoretically expected that emotional awareness develops with age, virtually no age differences have been established with the LEAS-C. The present study investigated whether an adaptation of the instructions and scoring procedure on the basis of the componential emotion approach could improve the validity of the LEAS-C and reveal the theoretically expected age differences. An adapted LEAS-C was administered to a sample of 574 children and adolescents and scored with the original and a new componential scoring procedure. An acceptable reliability for the original and a good reliability and a high interrater reliability for the componential scoring procedure were observed. Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses showed measurement invariance of factor loadings and intercepts across children (8 to 12 years) and adolescents (13 to 16 years) for all tested models, for both scoring procedures. A one-factor model fitted well for the total scores and self and other scores for both scoring procedures. The pattern of relationships with alexithymia, emotional intelligence, intelligence, personality, and social and emotional impairment as well as gender differences were comparable with prior research. Furthermore, the expected relationship with age was found, with stronger correlations for the componential than the original scoring procedure. In conclusion, analyses of the reliability, internal structure, and nomological network supported the adaptations of the LEAS-C on the basis of the componential emotion approach. (PsycINFO Database Record [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 76 (3 UL)