Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 May-Jun;21(5-6):557-569.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2019.09.003. Epub 2019 Sep 18.

Psychometric Evaluation of the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) Tool: Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity

Affiliations

Psychometric Evaluation of the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) Tool: Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity

Katie A Butera et al. J Pain. 2020 May-Jun.

Abstract

Psychological characteristics consistently predict clinical outcomes for musculoskeletal pain conditions. The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) tool assesses negative mood, fear-avoidance, and positive affect/coping. Psychometric testing of the tool is needed to guide clinical use. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to determine the OSPRO-YF factor structure (17- and 10-item versions) and test factor reliability and concurrent validity. Data from 2 musculoskeletal pain cohorts (n1 = 428; n2 = 440) were used. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified the factor structure in the first cohort; a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) validated the factor structure in the second cohort. EFA yielded 4 factors for the 17-item version (catastrophizing, positive coping, negative mood, fear-avoidance) and 3 factors for the 10-item version (negative coping, negative mood positive affect/coping). CFA indicated good fit for the10-item and 17-item models. Factors from both versions demonstrated moderate to good test-retest reliability. Regression results revealed that factors from both versions contributed significantly to variance in pain intensity, disability, and quality of life. Results indicate the OSPRO-YF is a reliable and valid multidimensional psychological assessment tool for individuals with musculoskeletal pain. Future studies are needed to establish the OSPRO-YF as a prognostic and treatment monitoring tool. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the psychometric properties of the OSPRO-YF tool. Findings indicate the OSPRO-YF is a reliable and valid multidimensional psychological assessment tool for individuals with musculoskeletal pain. Implementation of the OSPRO-YF tool may better guide clinical decision making and may lead to improved musculoskeletal pain management strategies.

Keywords: Pain-related psychological characteristics; multidimensional screening; musculoskeletal pain; pain; psychological assessment; psychometric evaluation; yellow flags.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. 17-item OSPRO-YF Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
17-item OSPRO-YF four-factor model structure and resulting standardized parameter estimates; a summary of the fit statistic results is also shown; GFI=Goodness of Fit (>0.9, good); CFI=Comparative Fit Index (>0.95, good; >0.9 acceptable); RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error Approximation (<0.06, good; <0.08, acceptable); p-close refers to a value that tests the RMSEA confidence interval (p-close>0.05, reject null hypothesis of poor fit).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. 10-item OSPRO-YF Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
10-item OSPRO-YF three-factor model structure and resulting standardized parameter estimates; a summary of the fit statistic results is also shown; GFI=Goodness of Fit (>0.9, good); CFI=Comparative Fit Index (>0.95, good; >0.9 acceptable); RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error Approximation (<0.06, good; <0.08, acceptable); p-close refers to a value that tests the RMSEA confidence interval (p-close>0.05, reject null hypothesis of poor fit).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bair MJ, Robinson RL, Katon W, Kroenke K. Depression and pain comorbidity: a literature review. Arch Intern Med 163:2433–45, 2003. - PubMed
    1. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, Upper Extremity Collaborative G. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1038–46,2005. - PubMed
    1. Beneciuk JM, Bishop MD, Fritz JM, Robinson ME, Asal NR, Nisenzon AN, George SZ. The STarT back screening tool and individual psychological measures: evaluation of prognostic capabilities for low back pain clinical outcomes in outpatient physical therapy settings. Phys Ther 93:321–33, 2013. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beneciuk JM, Fritz JM, George SZ. The STarT Back Screening Tool for prediction of 6-month clinical outcomes: relevance of change patterns in outpatient physical therapy settings. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44:656–64, 2014. - PubMed
    1. Beneciuk JM, Lentz TA, He Y, Wu SS, George SZ. Prediction of persistent musculoskeletal pain at 12 months: a secondary analysis of the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) validation cohort study. Phys Ther 98:290–301, 2018. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources