A Shortened Version of the Headache‐Specific Locus of Control Scale in Spanish Population

Abstract

(Headache 2010;50:1335‐1345) Background and Objective.— Further questions need to be addressed in the evaluation of locus of control (LOC) in headaches, such as reducing scale length and adapting them to diverse cultural environments, as in the case of Spain. Methods.— We perform a confirmatory factor analysis of the most outstanding items contained in the Headache‐Specific Locus of Control Scale in the responses of 118 patients suffering from headaches who received assistance at public health care centers in the province of Seville (Spain). Results.— The adjustment was positive, thus confirming the original structure of 3 factors: internal locus of control (LOC‐I), health care professionals' LOC, and chance locus of control (LOC‐C). Scale validation was performed by examining associations both with headache clinical parameters and psychological measures. The latter included self‐efficacy, internal language, coping strategies, and pain behaviors. LOC‐C results deserve special mention, supporting the idea that it seems more important to avoid that patients develop LOC‐C rather than boosting LOC‐I and LOC‐P expectations. Conclusions.— The so‐called Headache‐Specific Locus of Control Scale‐Short Form 9 has turned out to be a parsimonious (9 items), valid, and reliable measure of headache LOC.

Who is in charge when I have a headache? Brazilian version of the Headache-Specific Locus of Control Scale

“…As in the HSLC original study 14 , LOC-I scores were positively correlated with depression and headacherelated disability and LOC-P scores were positively correlated with pain catastrophizing and headache-related disability. The direction and degree of those correlations were in line with the results found in validation studies on other clinical populations 35,36 . Moreover, the lack of correlations between the three LOCs and sociodemographic variables (age, education labor status, income and marital status) demonstrates the relevance of considering correlations with other psychological variables with which LOC beliefs were associated.…”

Brazilian version of headache management self-efficacy scale

“…As in the study carried out by Cano-García and coworkers 18 , we chose to select only the items with the highest factorial loading (above 0.50). The items selected and their respective factor loadings are presented on Table 2.…”

Cross‐Sectional Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Headache‐Specific Locus of Control Scale in People With Migraine

“…Martin and colleagues report adequate internal consistency across all 3 components ( α ’s ranging from 0.84 to 0.88) and provide initial evidence of construct validity . A handful of studies provide further evidence of internal consistency ( α ’s ranging from 0.71 to 0.88) and construct validity as demonstrated by typically moderate associations between HSLC and headache‐related beliefs (self‐efficacy and pain catastrophizing), and typically small associations between HSLC and psychiatric symptoms (anxiety and depression), migraine‐specific quality of life, and disability …”

“…10 A handful of studies provide further evidence of internal consistency (α's ranging from 0.71 to 0.88) and construct validity as demonstrated by typically moderate associations between HSLC and headache-related beliefs (self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing), and typically small associations between HSLC and psychiatric symptoms (anxiety and depression), migraine-specific quality of life, and disability. [13][14][15][16] Research guidelines and funding agencies recommend assessing putative therapeutic mechanisms, such as HSLC, in behavioral treatment trials. 17,18 Empirical information about these beliefs and their relationship with migraine outcomes is essential to evaluate the active components of the existing treatments and to develop modifications or new treatments to more optimally treat migraine.…”