uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Patient Goal Priority Questionnaire (PGPQ) is moderately reproducible in people with persistent musculoskeletal pain
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Neuroscience, Physiotheraphy.
2009 (English)In: Physical Therapy, ISSN 0031-9023, E-ISSN 1538-6724, Vol. 89, no 11, 1226-1234 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND

 The Patient Goal Priority Questionnaire (PGPQ) is a patient-specific measure for identification of behavioral goals and evaluation of clinically significant changes. The use of such a measure in clinical settings and research requires that identified goals be consistent over time. Self-reports of behaviors related to the goals should be reliably estimated.

OBJECTIVE

 The purpose of this study was to estimate chance-corrected agreement and test-retest reliability of the PGPQ. Chance-corrected agreement between the PGPQ and a similar therapist-guided goal identification tool, the Patient Goal Priority List (PGPL), also was estimated.

DESIGN

A correlative and prospective design with 3 measurement points (M1, M2, and M3) was used in the study.

METHODS

 Fifty-four people who consulted physical therapists in primary care for persistent musculoskeletal pain were included in the study. Analyses of chance-corrected agreement and test-retest reliability of the PGPQ were done at M1 and M2. Chance-corrected agreement between procedures (PGPQ and PGPL) also was analyzed at M1 and M3.

RESULTS

 The percentage of agreement on content of the priority lists of the PGPQ at M1 and M2 was 52%. Cohen kappa values for agreement of rankings ranged between .47 and .64. Test-retest reliability coefficients for the self-report scales of the PGPQ ranged from .35 to .81. Chance-corrected agreement decreased when physical therapists were involved in the goal identification process using the PGPL (kappa = .08-.46).

LIMITATIONS

 Varying item content and a small, heterogeneous sample possibly increased variation and the standard error of measurements. The feasibility of using traditional approaches to psychometric evaluation of patient-specific measures is questionable.

CONCLUSIONS

 Chance-corrected agreement and test-retest reliability of the PGPQ were moderate. Involving a physical therapist in the goal identification procedure possibly introduced further bias. The size of the measurement error must be taken into account when using the PGPQ for estimations of clinically important changes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 89, no 11, 1226-1234 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-124958DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20090030ISI: 000273184600015OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-124958DiVA: diva2:318197
Available from: 2010-05-06 Created: 2010-05-06 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Åsenlöf, Pernilla

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Åsenlöf, Pernilla
By organisation
Physiotheraphy
In the same journal
Physical Therapy
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 658 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf