Premium
G erman Language Adaptation of the H eadache M anagement S elf‐Efficacy S cale ( HMSE ‐ G ) and Development of a New Short Form ( HMSE ‐ G ‐ SF )
Author(s) -
Graef Julia E.,
Rief Winfried,
French Douglas J.,
Nilges Paul,
Nestoriuc Yvonne
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
headache: the journal of head and face pain
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.14
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1526-4610
pISSN - 0017-8748
DOI - 10.1111/head.12564
Subject(s) - medicine , coping (psychology) , self efficacy , anxiety , physical therapy , psychology , clinical psychology , psychiatry , psychotherapist
Objective This study aims to develop and validate a G erman version of F rench and colleagues’ Headache Management Self‐efficacy Scale and to construct an abbreviated form for use in behavioral headache research. Furthermore, the contribution of headache‐specific self‐efficacy to pain‐related disability in G erman chronic headache sufferers was examined. Background Headache‐specific self‐efficacy refers to an individuals’ confidence that they can engage in behaviors to either prevent headache episodes or to manage headache‐related pain and disability. Self‐efficacy beliefs have been shown repeatedly to be positively associated with psychological well‐being, effective coping, and enhanced treatment outcomes. Methods A cross‐sectional sample of 304 individuals diagnosed with either migraine, chronic tension‐type headache, or a combination of 2 or more headache disorders completed the G erman Headache Management Self‐efficacy Scale and questionnaires assessing headache activity, pain‐related coping, general self‐efficacy, depression, and anxiety. Responsiveness of the scale was analyzed in a longitudinal subsample of 32 inpatients undergoing headache treatment. Finally, a short form was constructed and evaluated regarding psychometric properties. Results The G erman Headache Management Self‐efficacy Scale showed good reliability ( C ronbach's α = 0.87) as did the 6‐item short form ( C ronbach's α = 0.72). In the longitudinal sample, both versions showed a good ability to change over time (SRM= 0.52‐1.16). Chronic headache patients with higher levels of self‐efficacy reported lower levels of disability (r = −0.26 to −0.31). Multiple regression analyses revealed headache intensity and headache‐specific self‐efficacy as strongest predictors of headache‐related disability ( β self‐efficacy = −0.21, β intensity = 0.26). Conclusions Both the 25‐item version and the 6‐item version appear to be valid, reliable measures of self‐efficacy beliefs. These scales will allow clinicians to identify headache sufferers with low levels of headache‐specific self‐efficacy with the goal of enhancing this expectancy for improvement. The new short form can help accomplish this goal without adding significantly to the burden of the self‐report assessment batteries used in clinical settings.