Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Finnish version of the pain catastrophizing scale in chronic low back pain.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
The 13-item pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) is the most commonly used measure of pain catastrophizing. A validated Finnish version of the PCS has previously been unavailable. The objectives were to translate the original English version of the PCS into Finnish (PCS-FI), then to evaluate (i) structural validity of the PCS-FI with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), (ii) internal reliability with Cronbach's alpha, Omega, and Omega hierarchical, (iii) convergent validity with measures of well-being, quality of life, sleep quality, symptoms of central sensitization, and anxiety, and (iv) known-groups validity between participants with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and pain-free controls.
METHODS
The translation process was performed with established guidelines. The PCS-FI was psychometrically validated using 92 participants with CLBP and 53 pain-free controls.
RESULTS
Structural validity with CFA supported a bifactor solution. However, low reliability was found for the three specific factors (ω h ranging from 0.14 to 0.18) compared to the general factor (ω h = 0.88) suggesting that only the total score should be used. Convergent validity analysis showed satisfactory correlations and medium effect sizes with the other patient-reported outcome measures. Participants with CLBP had significantly higher total PCS-FI scores than pain-free controls.
CONCLUSIONS
The PCS-FI appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for assessing pain-related catastrophizing in Finnish-speaking populations. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Savo Hospital District, identification number 2131/2022, on the 31st of January 2022.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.