Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Eur J Pain. 2019 Jan 9;23(4):800–811. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1348

Table 4.

Bootstrapped mediation analyses testing the indirect effect of pain expectancies on TS of pain through pain catastrophizing

Path
coefficient 		Bootstrap
SE 		t p BC 95% CI
CLBP patients (n = 437) Path a 1.2811 .2238 5.7252 .001
Path b .2412 .0745 3,2370 .001
Path c .8320 .3511 2.3695 .018
Path c1 .5230 .3602 1.4518 .147
Total indirect effect
a x b .3090 .1117 LL=.1222 UL=.5604
Controls (n = 115) Path a .6016 .2827 2.1279 .036
Path b −.2076 .1691 −1.2278 .222
Path c .5422 .5071 1.0693 .287
Path c1 .6671 .5160 2.220 .0282
Total indirect effect
a x b −.1249 .1327 LL=−.5864 UL=.0244

Note: SE, standard error; CI: Confidence intervals; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit.Note. Table shows standardized path coefficients for the total and specific indirect effects. Path a, effect of pain expectancies on pain catastrophizing; Path b, effect of pain catastrophizing on TS of pain; Path c, total effect of pain expectancies on TS of pain; Path c1, direct effect of pain expectancies on TS of pain; Path ab, indirect effect of pain expectancies on TS of pain through pain catastrophizing. Path coefficients are based on 5,000 bootstraps for the indirect effect. Lower limit and upper limit confidence intervals were used to determine statistical significance of indirect effects.