4.1 Article

A Comparison of Short Forms of the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain - Revised (SOAPP-R)

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 387-398

Publisher

HOGREFE PUBLISHING CORP
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000519

Keywords

Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain; Revised (SOAPP-R); opioid misuse; short form; respondent and administrative burden; computer-based testing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain - Revised (SOAPP-R) is a 24-item self-report questionnaire that assesses risk of aberrant medication-related behavior among chronic pain patients. Recently, an 8-item version of the SOAPP-R that weights items differentially was proposed. However, no previous study had compared the 8-item form with other short versions of the SOAPP-R, including a static 12-item short form and computer-based versions customizing the test length to the individual respondent. Moreover, no prior research had investigated combining the 8-item short form with customized computer-based stopping rules to further enhance efficiency. The objectives of this study were to compare the 8-item version with previously recommended short forms of the SOAPP-R, and to develop and evaluate a new version of the SOAPP-R combining the 8-item version with computer-based stopping rules. Versions were compared via sensitivity, specificity, and mean test length using real-data simulation of three datasets. Although results varied across datasets, the 8-item SOAPP-R compared favorably to previously recommended forms. Combining the 8-item form with computer-based stopping rules reduced the mean test length without affecting sensitivity or specificity; thus, the combined approach is recommended. The methodology used to shorten questionnaires via computer-based testing can also be applied to other instruments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available