Assessing the Straightforwardly-Worded Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale for Differential Item Functioning Across Gender and Ethnicity

The Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE; Leary Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371–375, 1983) assesses fear and worry about receiving negative evaluation from others. Rodebaugh et al. Psychological Assessment, 16, 169–181, (2004) found that the BFNE is composed of a reverse-worded factor (BFNE-R) and straightforwardly-worded factor (BFNE-S). Further, they found the BFNE-S to have better psychometric properties and provide more information than the BFNE-R. Currently there is a lack of research regarding the measurement invariance of the BFNE-S across gender and ethnicity with respect to item thresholds. The present study uses item response theory (IRT) to test the BFNE-S for differential item functioning (DIF) related to gender and ethnicity (White, Asian, and Black). Six data sets consisting of clinical, community, and undergraduate participants were utilized (N=2,109). The factor structure of the BFNE-S was confirmed using categorical confirmatory factor analysis, IRT model assumptions were tested, and the BFNE-S was evaluated for DIF. Item nine demonstrated significant non-uniform DIF between White and Black participants. No other items showed significant uniform or non-uniform DIF across gender or ethnicity. Results suggest the BFNE-S can be used reliably with men and women and Asian and White participants. More research is needed to understand the implications of using the BFNE-S with Black participants

Implications of preoperative depression for lumbar spine surgery outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE: Comorbid depression is common among patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease. Although a well-researched topic, the evidence of the role of depression in spine surgery outcomes remains inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between preoperative depression and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after lumbar spine surgery. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Scopus, PsychInfo, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed from database inception to September 14, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies involved adults undergoing lumbar spine surgery and compared PROMs in patients with vs those without depression. Studies evaluating the correlation between preoperative depression and disease severity were also included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All data were independently extracted by 2 authors and independently verified by a third author. Study quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to synthesize data, and I2 was used to assess heterogeneity. Metaregression was performed to identify factors explaining the heterogeneity. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the standardized mean difference (SMD) of change from preoperative baseline to postoperative follow-up in PROMs of disability, pain, and physical function for patients with vs without depression. Secondary outcomes were preoperative and postoperative differences in absolute disease severity for these 2 patient populations. RESULTS: Of the 8459 articles identified, 44 were included in the analysis. These studies involved 21 452 patients with a mean (SD) age of 57 (8) years and included 11 747 females (55%). Among these studies, the median (range) follow-up duration was 12 (6-120) months. The pooled estimates of disability, pain, and physical function showed that patients with depression experienced a greater magnitude of improvement compared with patients without depression, but this difference was not significant (SMD, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.10]; I2 = 75%; P = .21). Nonetheless, patients with depression presented with worse preoperative disease severity in disability, pain, and physical function (SMD, -0.52 [95% CI, -0.62 to -0.41]; I2 = 89%; P \u3c .001), which remained worse postoperatively (SMD, -0.52 [95% CI, -0.75 to -0.28]; I2 = 98%; P \u3c .001). There was no significant correlation between depression severity and the primary outcome. A multivariable metaregression analysis suggested that age, sex (male to female ratio), percentage of comorbidities, and follow-up attrition were significant sources of variance. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that, although patients with depression had worse disease severity both before and after surgery compared with patients without depression, they had significant potential for recovery in disability, pain, and physical function. Further investigations are needed to examine the association between spine-related disability and depression as well as the role of perioperative mental health treatments

Establishing the Reliability, Validity, and Prognostic Utility of the Momentary Pain Catastrophizing Scale for use in Ecological Momentary Assessment Research

Despite the marked increase in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) research, few reliable and valid measures of momentary experiences have been established. The goal of this preregistered study was to establish the reliability, validity, and prognostic utility of the momentary Pain Catastrophizing Scale (mPCS), a 3-item measure developed to assess situational pain catastrophizing. Participants in two studies of postsurgical pain outcomes completed the mPCS three to five times per day prior to surgery (N = 494, T = 20,271 total assessments). The mPCS showed good psychometric properties, including multilevel reliability and factor invariance across time. Participant-level average mPCS was strongly positively correlated with dispositional pain catastrophizing as assessed by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (r = .55 and .69 in Study 1 and Study 2, respectively). To establish prognostic utility, we then examined whether the mPCS improved prediction of postsurgical pain outcomes above and beyond one-time assessment of dispositional pain catastrophizing. Indeed, greater variability in momentary pain catastrophizing prior to surgery was uniquely associated with increased pain immediately after surgery (b = 0.58, p = 0.005), after controlling for preoperative pain levels and dispositional pain catastrophizing. Greater average mPCS score prior to surgery was also uniquely associated with lesser day-to-day improvement in postsurgical pain (b = 0.01, p = 0.003), whereas dispositional pain catastrophizing was not (b = -0.007, p = 0.099). These results show that the mPCS is a reliable and valid tool for EMA research and highlight its potential utility over and above retrospective measures of pain catastrophizing