Skip to main content
Download PDF

Measurement properties of the Regular Physical Exercise Adherence Scale (REPEAS) in individuals with chronic pain

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1776 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To examine the measurement properties of the Regular Physical Exercise Adherence Scale (REPEAS) in Brazilians with chronic pain.

Methods

Cross-sectional and longitudinal design (washout period for reliability). The study was conducted in two Brazilian states, Maranhão and São Paulo, and included Brazilian adults, irregular exercisers, former exercisers or non-exercise practitioners, aged 18 to 59 years and with chronic pain. The instruments used in this study were: the REPEAS, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (BHPAQ), the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for general pain (RMDQ-g). The evaluation focused on structural validity, construct validity, reliability (with standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change), internal consistency, and floor and ceiling effects.

Results

The two-dimensional structure was tested through confirmatory factor analysis, which resulted in adequate fit indeces: chi-square values/degrees of freedom = 1.541, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.966, comparative fit index = 0.974, root mean square error of approximation = 0.074, and standardized root mean square residual = 0.068. Additionally, satisfactory factor loadings (> 0.40) were obtained. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were adequate for the environmental factors domain (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.79, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88) and the personal factors domain (ICC = 0.97, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93). In hypothesis testing for construct validity, we observed a significant correlation with magnitude below 0.30 of the environmental factors domain of the REPEAS with RMDQ-g, PSEQ and sport domain of the BHPAQ. For the personal factors domain, we observed a significant correlation with a magnitude of 0.30 to 0.50 with RMDQ-g, PSEQ, and sport domain of the BHPAQ, and below 0.30 with leisure domain of the BHPAQ. No floor or ceiling effects were found for the REPEAS domains.

Conclusion

The REPEAS is a valid instrument with a two-dimensional internal structure consisting of 12 items. It has a reliable construct and is suitable for use in the clinical and epidemiological context for adults with chronic pain in Brazil.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Chronic pain is pain that persists beyond the normal tissue healing time (typically 12 weeks) [1]. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, poor quality of life, and overall health care costs [2]. For many years, the treatment of choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity [3]. However, we currently know that physical exercise has specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with increasing quality of life [1,2,3].

Physical exercise is defined as a type of physical activity that is planned, structured, and repetitive, with the goal of improving or maintaining physical fitness levels [4, 5]. Therefore, while all physical exercise is a form of physical activity, not all physical activity is considered physical exercise [4, 5]. Physical inactivity is a significant modifiable health risk behavior and ranks as the fourth leading risk factor for mortality [4, 5].

Recent studies suggest that physical activity levels have decreased significantly in countries with higher per capita income, as well as in middle and low-income countries [6, 7]. Sedentary behavior is defined as activities that do not significantly increase energy expenditure above the resting level [8]. In many countries, adults do not adhere to the recommended levels of aerobic exercise and muscle strengthening as proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) [4, 5].

In complement, the exercise adherence is largely impacted by sociodemographic factors and lifestyle of the population [9]. Environmental and safety factors are also found to impact adherence [10]. For individuals with chronic pain, the literature consistently supports exercise as one of the most effective therapeutic strategies, regardless of the type of exercise modality [1]. Chronic pain is typically described as diffuse pain lasting for more than three months. Chronic pain is primarily associated with the nociplastic category of pain mechanisms, where nociception is altered due to probable neuronal dysregulation, without any apparent tissue damage [11].

Given the importance of regular exercise for people with chronic pain, it is crucial to identify the barriers to proper adherence to this therapeutic and health-promoting modality. Regular exercise promotes improvement in pain sensitization through the release of endogenous opioids and beta-endorphins that act on hypoalgesia [12] and improves physical function by reducing pain [13].

Currently, the scientific literature only provides validation for the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS) in Brazil [14]. This tool assesses adherence to exercise prescribed by healthcare professionals for individuals with chronic low back pain. However, while the EARS presents adequate measurement properties, it lacks items related to environmental factors and has characteristics that are more focused on clinical monitoring of patients rather than addressing the context of the epidemiological profile. Additionally, it was validated for a specific population with chronic pain, specifically low back pain [14].

Therefore, in this scenario, the Regular Physical Exercise Adherence Scale (REPEAS) was created and validated in 2023 for the general population. It consists of items that investigate the barriers to adherence to regular exercise, distributed in two domains: environmental factors and personal factors [15]. As such, REPEAS fills an important gap in the management of patients with chronic pain. As such, we aimed to examine the measurement properties (structural validity, reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity) of the REPEAS in Brazilians with chronic pain.

Methods

Study design

This is a validation study for a questionnaire with a cross-sectional and longitudinal design (washout period for reliability), conducted in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines [16, 17]. Data was collected in two different states in Brazil: Maranhão (northeast) and São Paulo (southeast). The project received approval from the research ethics committee of the institution (report number: 5.328.899).

Sampling

The COSMIN recommendation was utilized, which considers 7 times the number of items in the instrument as an adequate sample size, provided that the minimum sample size is 100 participants [16, 17]. The sample consisted of adult individuals of both sexes, aged between 18 and 59 years, who self-reported chronic pain (for more than 3 months) in any region of the body, and included irregular exercisers, former exercisers, and non-exercise practitioners.

Individuals were recruited through social network advertising and in-person by the research team. Non-inclusion criteria included individuals who were not native to Brazil, had medical contraindications to performing physical exercises, or had a medical diagnosis of severe cognitive or psychiatric changes.

Eligibility criteria

This study enrolled patients with pain ≥ 3 points on the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) [18] at the time of assessment [19] and with pain persisting for at least 3 months at a level similar to that at the time of assessment [2, 20]. Eligible patients were literate in Brazilian Portuguese, had no diagnosed cognitive dysfunction, and were at least 18 years of age.

Assessement

Data was collected online using the Google Forms platform (Mountain View, CA, USA). The online form included items related to sociodemographic data, personal and clinical characteristics. Subsequently, the NPRS [18], REPEAS [15], Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (BHPAQ) [21], Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) [22], and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for general pain (RMDQ-g) were presented [23].

Numerical pain rating scale (NPRS)

NPRS is a scale used to quantify the pain intensity using a sequence of 11 numbers, in which 0 represents “no pain” and 10 “the worst pain imaginable”. The pain intensity was assessed at rest and after active spinal movements. This scale is validated for Portuguese [18]. This scale was used to characterize the sample.

Regular physical exercise adherence scale (REPEAS)

The focus of this study is on REPEAS, a tool used to evaluate the factors that affect adherence to physical exercise. The tool consists of a list of physical, emotional, and environmental situations that can either facilitate or hinder regular physical exercise. There are 12 items distributed in two domains: environmental factors domain (items 1 to 5) and personal factors domain (items 6 to 12). The respondent must indicate on a scale from 0 to 10 the answer option that best indicates these situations, in which 0 means “Does not make it difficult to practice physical exercise” and 10 means “It makes it very difficult to practice physical exercise”. To calculate the score per domain, add up the values of the responses given to each item and divide by the number of items answered. This will generate a score ranging from 0 to 10, which should then be multiplied by 10 to obtain a score from 0 to 100. A higher score indicates poorer adherence to physical exercise [15].

Baecke habitual physical activity questionnaire (BHPAQ)

The BHPAQ is a self-administered tool that assesses physical activity over the past 12 months through self-report. It comprises 16 items, categorized into three domains: occupational (items 1–8), sport (items 9–12), and leisure (items 13–16). To calculate the final score, each domain must be considered separately. The total score ranges from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater habitual physical activity. The BHPAQ has been adapted and validated for Brazilian Portuguese [21].

Pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ)

The PSEQ is a validated instrument for the Brazilian population. It consists of 10 items, each scored on a Likert scale from 0 to 6, with 0 indicating ‘not at all confident’ and 6 indicating ‘completely confident’. The total score ranges from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy [22].

Roland-Morris disability questionnaire for general pain (RMDQ-g)

The RMDQ-g is a valid instrument for the Brazilian population. It consists of 24 items, each scored as either 0 (no) or 1 (yes). The total score ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability [23].

Statistical analysis

SPSS software version 17.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) was used to process data on reliability (with standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change), internal consistency, construct validity, and other descriptive variables. The presentation of these variables is in the form of mean and standard deviation or absolute number and percentage. Structural validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the software R Studio (Boston, MA, USA) and the lavaan and semPlot packages [24].

The REPEAS was scored on a Likert scale (ordinal data). Thus, the researchers performed CFA by implementing a polychoric matrix and the robust diagonally weighted least squares (RDWLS) extraction method. We used the following fit indices: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with a 90% confidence interval (CI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and chi-square/degrees of freedom (DF).

The study considered values greater than 0.90 as adequate for CFI and TLI, and values less than 0.08 as adequate for RMSEA and SRMR. Values below 3.00 were considered adequate for the interpretation of chi-square/DF [25, 26]. Factor loadings equal to or greater than 0.40 were considered adequate for the domain [24].

Reliability (with standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change) was assessed using a test-retest model. A subsample of 50 participants answered the REPEAS twice, with a 7-day washout period between responses. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine reliability, with a cutoff point of acceptability set at a value greater than 0.75 [27]. Additionally, we calculated the standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change [19]. The internal consistency of each domain was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha, with appropriate values considered to be between 0.70 and 0.95 [28].

In the hypothesis testing for construct validity, we conducted the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test and used Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rho) to correlate the REPEAS with the BHPAQ, PSEQ, and RMDQ-g (due to non-normality of data distribution). The significance level was set at 0.05. Based on a previous study [14] and the nature of the constructs assessed by the instruments of the present study, we define the following hypotheses listed below.

  1. a)

    for the personal factors domain: significant and negative correlation (magnitude less than 0.30) with the PSEQ and RMDQ-g; significant and negative correlation (correlation magnitude between 0.30 and 0.50) with the sport domain of the BHPAQ; significant and negative correlation (magnitude less than 0.30) with the occupational and leisure domains of the BHPAQ;

  2. b)

    for the environmental factors domain: significant and negative correlation (correlation magnitude less than 0.30) with PSEQ, RMDQ-g and the BHPAQ domains.

The present study evaluated ceiling and floor effects. These effects occur when more than 15% of study participants reach the minimum or maximum values for the total questionnaire score, as defined [29].

Results

Sample characterization

The sample consists of 100 individuals, with the majority being female (72%). They are young adults, approximately 33 years old, and are married (49%). As shown in Table 1, most have completed higher education or more years of study. In terms of reported pain locations, the majority of participants reported low back pain (57%), followed by shoulder pain (26%) and neck pain (19%). Details on the pain locations are in Table 2 and descriptive values of the used questionnaires are in Table 3.

Table 1 Personal and social variables (n = 100)
Full size table
Table 2 Pain locations reported by study participants (n = 100)
Full size table
Table 3 Descriptive values of the used questionnaires (n = 100)
Full size table

Structural validity

The two-dimensional structure of the REPEAS was tested using CFA on items 1 to 5 in the environmental factors domain and 6 to 12 in the personal factors domain. Adequate fit indices were observed: chi-square/DF = 1.541, CFI = 0.974, TLI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.074 (90% CI = 0.038 to 0.105), and SRMR = 0.068. Additionally, the factor loadings of the domains explaining the scale items were satisfactory (> 0.40), as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The path diagram of the Regular Physical Exercise Adherence Scale (REPEAS) displays factor loadings that satisfactorily indicate the relationship between domains and items (> 0.40). The dashed line represents the first item in the domain. The thickness of the line corresponds to the factor loading. D1: Environmental factors; D2: Personal factors

Full size image

Reliability and internal consistency

Table 4 presents the values for test-retest reliability (with standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change) and internal consistency. The ICC was 0.79 and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88 for environmental factors, while the ICC was 0.87 and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93 for personal factors.

Table 4 Test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the regular physical exercise adherence scale (n = 50)
Full size table

Hypothesis testing for construct validity

We confirmed 70% of the hypotheses defined a priori, as shown in Table 5. For the environmental factors domain, we observed a significant correlation with a magnitude below 0.30 with RMDQ-g, PSEQ and sport domain of the BHPAQ. For the personal factors domain, we observed a significant correlation with a magnitude of 0.30 to 0.50 with RMDQ-g, PSEQ, and sport domain of the BHPAQ, and below 0.30 with leisure domain of the BHPAQ.

Table 5 Construct validity of domains of the regular physical exercise adherence scale (n = 100)
Full size table

Floor and ceiling effects

In the domain of environmental factors, none of the participants achieved the maximum score of 100 points, while 5% of the sample scored the minimum of 0. In the personal factors domain, no participant scored either the minimum or maximum. Thus, no floor or ceiling effects were identified in the REPEAS domains.

Discussion

The objective of this study was to facilitate the use of the newly developed REPEAS instrument for individuals in Brazil who suffer from chronic pain. The REPEAS has a two-dimensional structure comprising of 12 items and has demonstrated satisfactory structural validity, construct validity, reliability, and internal consistency.

When examining the measurement properties of the original REPEAS instrument in healthy adults, the researchers reported fit indices for the instrument’s structural validity that were slightly better than those found in the present study (CFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.075, and SRMR = 0.062) [15]. However, both structures within the model’s acceptability cutoff points. Therefore, our study also confirms the two-dimensional structure of the instrument.

The researchers reported adequate reliability values for the original version of REPEAS [15]. Specifically, they found an ICC of 0.86 and 0.94 for the environmental factors and personal domains, respectively, as well as a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 and 0.91 for the environmental factors and personal domains, respectively. Our study discovered lower reliability values for the environmental and personal domains, with ICC values of 0.79 and 0.87, respectively, and Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.88 and 0.93, respectively. However, all values are above the acceptable cutoff points of ICC > 0.75 and Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70.

The validation of the original version of REPEAS involved a comparison between different groups, including regular practitioners and ex-practitioners/non-practitioners. In our study, we correlated measures known for patients with pain and found a significant correlation between the REPEAS domains and self-efficacy, physical activity related to sports and leisure, functional disability (correlation magnitude ranging from − 0.149 to -0.372).

The EARS investigates adherence to exercise prescribed at home by health professionals for people with chronic low back pain. Newman-Beinart et al. [30] developed the EARS, and the Brazilian version of the instrument demonstrated adequate reliability (ICC of 0.91) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88). Additionally, the EARS construct was deemed adequate, exhibiting correlation magnitudes comparable to those found in the present study. The correlations ranged from − 0.22 to -0.37 with constructs such as anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, avoidance, and disability. The only exception was pain intensity, which showed a higher correlation magnitude (rho = -0.52) [14].

In addition, the Adherence to Exercise for Musculoskeletal Pain Tool (ATEMPT) was recently created in English for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. The authors reported adequate reliability (ICC of 0.78 and 0.88 for the 6-item version) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83 and 0.88 for the 6-item version) [31]. However, construct validity was not assessed.

The REPEAS has several positive attributes, including appropriate domains based on factor analysis, a broad scope that is not limited to a specific pain group, a concise 12-item format that is easy to complete, and its use in both clinical and epidemiological contexts. Additionally, there are no costs or fees associated with using the REPEAS. In terms of practical implications, the REPEAS is the first instrument adapted for people with chronic pain and will be useful for investigating barriers to adherence to regular exercise, whether due to environmental or personal factors. Furthermore, it is an instrument with few items, taking into account international recommendations for instruments that are easy to use in the clinical routine of evaluating patients with chronic pain.

Our study has limitations that must be considered. The REPEAS tool only assesses environmental and personal barriers to regular physical exercise in people with chronic pain. It does not assess other barriers that health professionals may encounter in their practice. The results of this study are only applicable to the Brazilian population. Therefore, it is necessary to translate, adapt and validate the tool for use in other countries and cultures. Finally, we suggest additional studies to analyze whether the results of personal and environmental factors influence exercise adherence in this population and what the clinical implications are.

Conclusion

The REPEAS is a valid instrument with a two-dimensional internal structure consisting of 12 items. It has a reliable construct and is suitable for use in the clinical and epidemiological context for adults with chronic pain in Brazil.

Data availability

The data and materials in this paper are available from the corresponding author on request (André Pontes-Silva).

Abbreviations

CFA:

Confrmatory Factor Analysis

CFI:

Comparative fit index

COSMIN:

COnsensusbased Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments

DF:

Degree of freedom

NPRS:

11-Item Numeric Pain Rating Scale

RDWLS:

Robust Diagonally Weighted Least Squares

RHO:

Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient

RMSEA:

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

REPEAS:

Regular Physical Exercise Adherence Scale

BHPAQ:

Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire

PSEQ:

Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire

RMDQ-g:

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for general pain

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Geneen LJ, Moore RA, Clarke C, Martin D, Colvin LA, Smith BH. Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017.

  2. Borisovskaya A, Chmelik E, Karnik A. Exercise and chronic pain. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020;1228:233–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hayden JA, Ellis J, Ogilvie R, Stewart SA, Bagg MK, Stanojevic S, et al. Some types of exercise are more effective than others in people with chronic low back pain: a network meta-analysis. J Physiother. 2021;67:252–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. ACSM. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:687–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanaley JA, Colberg SR, Corcoran MH, Malin SK, Rodriguez NR, Crespo CJ, et al. Exercise/Physical activity in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a Consensus Statement from the American College of Sports Medicine. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2022;54:353–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC. Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1· 9 million participants. Lancet Glob Heal. 2018;6:e1077–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U, et al. Global physical activity levels: Surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380:247–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, Saunders TJ, Carson V, Latimer-Cheung AE, et al. Sedentary behavior research network (SBRN)–terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Maciel EdaS, Silva BKR, Figueiredo FWDS, Pontes-Silva A, Quaresma FRP, Adami F, et al. Physical inactivity level and lipid profile in traditional communities in the Legal Amazon: a cross-sectional study: physical inactivity level in the Legal Amazon. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:542.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Garcia-Hermoso A, López-Gil JF, Ramírez-Vélez R, Alonso-Martínez AM, Izquierdo M, Ezzatvar Y. Adherence to aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3.3 million participants across 32 countries. Br J Sports Med. 2023;57:225–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chimenti RL, Frey-Law LA, Sluka KA. A mechanism-based approach to physical therapist management of pain. Phys Ther. 2018;98:302–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan L, Cicuttini FM, Fairley J, Romero L, Estee M, Hussain SM, et al. Does aerobic exercise effect pain sensitisation in individuals with musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23:1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Weng Q, Goh S-L, Wu J, Persson MSM, Wei J, Sarmanova A et al. Comparative efficacy of exercise therapy and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and Paracetamol for knee or hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Sports Med. 2023.

  14. De Lira MR, de Oliveira AS, França RA, Pereira AC, Godfrey EL, Chaves TC. The Brazilian Portuguese version of the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS-Br) showed acceptable reliability, validity and responsiveness in chronic low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pereira FHF, Santos-de-Araújo AD, Pontes-Silva A, Marinho RS, Garcia-Araújo AS, Borghi-Silva A, et al. Regular physical Exercise Adherence Scale (REPEAS): a new instrument to measure environmental and personal barriers to adherence to regular physical exercise. BMC Public Health. 2023;23:2491.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, de Patrick DLJALMBHC. VCB. COSMIN Study Design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Medical Centers; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual life Res Int J Qual life Asp Treat care Rehabil. 2018;27:1147–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain. 2011;152:2399–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pontes-Silva A, Avila MA, de Araujo Ada, Penha S, Takahasi TFC, Bassi-Dibai HY. Assessment of the reliability of the Leg lateral Reach Test to measure Thoraco-Lumbo-pelvic rotation in individuals with chronic low back Pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2021;44:566–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pontes-Silva A, Bassi-Dibai D, Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes CA, Souza CdaS, Pires F, de Mostarda O. Comparison of the autonomic nervous system dysfunction between different chronic spine disorders: neck pain versus low back pain. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2022;68:1288–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Florindo AA, Latorre M. Do RD De O. Validação E reprodutibilidade do questionário de baecke de avaliação da atividade física habitual em homens adultos. Rev Bras Med do Esporte. 2003;9:121–35.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nicholas MK. The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: taking pain into account. Eur J Pain. 2007;11:153–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sardá Júnior JJ, Nicholas MK, Pimenta CA, de Asghari M, Thieme A. AL. Validação do Questionário De Incapacidade Roland Morris para dor em geral. Rev Dor. 2010.

  24. Júnior FBdaS, Dibai-Filho AV, Brito Pinheiro CA, Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes CA, Pinheiro JS, Girasol CE, et al. 15-item Roland-Morris disability questionnaire for general pain (RMDQ-g): structural validity and criterion validity on Brazilian patients with chronic pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2023;66:102823.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd edition. New York: Guilford Publications; 2006.

  26. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. MPR-online. 2003;8:23–74.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Enderlein G, Fleiss JL. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. Wiley, New York – Chichester – Brislane – Toronto – Singapore 1986, 432 S., £38.35. Biometrical J. 1988;30:304–304.

  28. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pontes-Silva A, Avila MA, Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes CA, Dibai-Filho AV. The short-form Neck Disability index has adequate measurement properties in chronic neck pain patients. Eur Spine J off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2021;30:3593–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Newman-Beinart NA, Norton S, Dowling D, Gavriloff D, Vari C, Weinman JA, et al. The development and initial psychometric evaluation of a measure assessing adherence to prescribed exercise: the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS). Physiotherapy. 2017;103:180–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bailey DL, Bishop A, McCray G, Foster NE, Holden MA. A new measure of exercise adherence: the ATEMPT (adherence to Exercise for Musculoskeletal Pain Tool). Br J Sports Med. 2024;58:73–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

N/A.

Funding

This study was partially supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES, code 001). The funding source had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Postgraduate Program in Adult Health, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, São Luís, MA, Brazil

    Cezar Augusto Brito Pinheiro & Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho

  2. Postgraduate Program in Environment, Universidade Ceuma, São Luís, MA, Brazil

    Daniela Bassi-Dibai & Fábio Henrique Ferreira Pereira

  3. Postgraduate Program in Physical Therapy, Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

    André Pontes-Silva

  4. Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation and Functional Performance, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

    Jocassia Silva Pinheiro

  5. Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Science, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Cid André Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes

Authors
  1. Cezar Augusto Brito Pinheiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniela Bassi-Dibai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. André Pontes-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fábio Henrique Ferreira Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jocassia Silva Pinheiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cid André Fidelis-de-Paula-Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AVD-F – Conceptualization. CABP, DB-D, AP-S, FHFP, JSP, CAFPG, AVD-F – Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing (original draft, review, and editing). All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Pontes-Silva.

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

N/A.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Ceuma (report number: 5.328.899).

Consent to participate

The informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s). All respondents participated in this study freely and with consent. All experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Competing interests

Cid André Fidelis de Paula Gomes, Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho, and André Pontes-Silva serve as Associate Editors and Reviewers for BMC Series. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pinheiro, C.A.B., Bassi-Dibai, D., Pontes-Silva, A. et al. Measurement properties of the Regular Physical Exercise Adherence Scale (REPEAS) in individuals with chronic pain. BMC Public Health 24, 1776 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19297-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19297-w

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us