Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repositorio.usj.es/handle/123456789/909

Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBellosta-López, Pablo-
dc.contributor.authorPalsson, Thorvaldur S.-
dc.contributor.authorSkou, Søren T-
dc.contributor.authorHirata, Rogério-
dc.contributor.authorChristensen, Steffan Wittrup Mc Phee-
dc.contributor.authorPape, Morten Haugaard-
dc.contributor.authorRafn, Trine-
dc.date.accessioned2023-04-12T07:55:50Z-
dc.date.available2023-04-12T07:55:50Z-
dc.date.issued2023-04-06-
dc.identifier.issn1471-2865en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.usj.es/handle/123456789/909-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Personality traits are associated with pain‐related beliefs and coping strategies, and different chronic conditions are linked through specific personality profiles. This highlights the importance of having valid and reliable measures of personality traits for use in clinical and research settings when assessing patients in chronic pain. Purpose: To translate and cross‐culturally adapt the 10‐item Big Five Inventory (BFI‐10) into Danish. Methods: A bilingual expert panel (N = 4) and a panel of laymen (N = 8) translated and culturally adapted the questionnaire into Danish. Face validity was evaluated in a group of persons suffering from recurring or ongoing painful conditions (N = 9). Data were collected to evaluate the internal consistency, test–retest reliability and factor structure (N = 96).Results: Some of the participants in the lay panel considered the questionnaire too short, considering its aim of assessing personality. Acceptable internal consistency was found for two out of five subscales (0.78 for both Extraversion and Neuroticism), while the internal consistency was non‐acceptable for the remaining subscales (0.17–0.45). Test–retest reliability was acceptable for three subscales (0.80 for Neuroticism, 0.84 for Conscientiousness, and 0.85 for Extraversion). Assumptions for determining the factor structure were not met and therefore was this analysis omitted.Discussion: Although face valid, only two out of five subscales had acceptable internal consistency and only three subscales had acceptable test–retest reliability. These findings indicate that interpreting findings regarding personality using the Danish BFI‐10 should be done with caution.en_US
dc.format.extent9 p.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectCross‐cultural comparison,en_US
dc.subjectpersonality,en_US
dc.subjectpsychometrics,en_US
dc.subjecttranslationsen_US
dc.titleCross‐cultural translation and adaptation of the Danish version of the brief version of the 10‐item Big Five Inventoryen_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2004en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
Appears in Collections:Artículos de revistas

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Crosscultural translation and adaptation of the Danish version of the brief.pdf341,76 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons