The results concerning the efficacy of the multidisciplinary treatment are in accordance with former meta-analyses. Surprisingly, the findings suggest that the presented traditional orthopedic treatment was inherently very effective. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to the benefit of additional psychologic interventions and the benefit of aftercare approaches for chronic pain patients.

Zusammenfassung. Zur Erfassung von Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen bei Personen mit chronischen Schmerzen wird der Fragebogen zur Erfassung der schmerzspezifischen Selbstwirksamkeit (FESS), eine Adaptation des Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) ( Nicholas, 2007 ), vorgestellt. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Selbstwirksamkeitsmaßen berücksichtigt dieser bei der Einschätzung von Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen die vorliegenden Schmerzen. In einer obe von N = 363 Patienten (vorwiegend mit Rückenschmerzen) einer orthopädischen Rehabilitationsklinik wurden die psychometrischen Eigenschaften des FESS überprüft. Das Cronbachs Alpha der Gesamtskala liegt bei α = .93. Die einfaktorielle Struktur ließ sich faktorenanalytisch belegen. Hinweise auf die konvergente Validität des FESS liefert besonders die hohe Korrelation zur schmerzbedingten Beeinträchtigung („disability”) (PDI). Hinsichtlich der Konstruktvalidität zeigen sich für den spezifischen FESS und ein allgemeines Selbstwirksamkeitsmaß (SWE) teilweise unterschiedliche Korrelationen zu zentralen Kriteriumsvariablen des Schmerzgeschehens. Regressionsanalysen zeigen den prädiktiven Nutzen des FESS. Somit scheint der FESS ein gutes Instrument zur Status- und Veränderungsmessung in der klinischen Praxis sowie zur Evaluation von Therapieerfolgen in der Schmerzforschung zu sein.

Abstract. The purpose of this study was to replicate the working memory model proposed by Oberauer, Suess, Wilhelm, and Wittmann (2000) and to clarify its relationship to selective attention. Eleven working memory and attention tests were administered to 125 students. Using structural equation models, we were able to confirm a facet model of working memory with three functional and two content factors. Thus, the present study provides further evidence for a facet model of working memory. Additionally, the factor selective attention was added to this model. We found only low to moderate correlations between selective attention and functional working memory factors. Therefore, this study provides further evidence that selective attention, as measured by the Testbattery for Attentional Performance (TAP), and working memory are distinct concepts.

Psychological interventions in the inpatient orthopedic rehabilitation are recommended in order to adequately deal with the higher rate of persons with comorbid mental disorders.

Rehabilitants with chronic orthopaedic diseases are assigned to either the traditional or the behaviour-medical rehabilitation approach by consultant physicians of the rehabilitation department within the Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (German pension insurance agency). The clinical relevance of this assignment was evaluated at the Rehazentrum Bad Pyrmont-Klinik Weser within a randomised controlled trial. In a sample of 363 rehabilitants the agreement of consultant physicians with the ratings of physicians and psychologists in the clinic was analyzed. We also tested whether rehabilitants treated in their assigned approach benefit more from the treatment than patients who by randomisation were not treated in their assigned approach. Results indicate that psychiatric comorbidity frequently is taken into consideration as a decision-making criterion in the assignment made by the consultant physicians. However, there is only little agreement between the assignment by consultant physicians and the ratings by treating physicians and psychologists. Further, rehabilitants treated in their assigned approach did not benefit more from the treatment than patients who due to randomisation had not been treated in their assigned approach but in the other. Therefore, the procedure applied so far for assigning rehabilitants to either the traditional or the multidisciplinary rehabilitation approach is not sufficiently valid. Concluding, implications for the modification of assignment criteria are discussed.