Jani Mikkonen, Ville Leinonen, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Riikka Holopainen, Kristian Ekström, Petteri Koho, Olavi Airaksinen, Juan V Luciano, Jaime Navarrete, Randy Neblett
{"title":"芬兰版慢性腰背痛患者疼痛灾难化量表的维度、可靠性和有效性。","authors":"Jani Mikkonen, Ville Leinonen, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Riikka Holopainen, Kristian Ekström, Petteri Koho, Olavi Airaksinen, Juan V Luciano, Jaime Navarrete, Randy Neblett","doi":"10.1515/sjpain-2024-0034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The translation process was performed with established guidelines. The PCS-FI was psychometrically validated using 92 participants with CLBP and 53 pain-free controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Structural validity with CFA supported a bifactor solution. However, low reliability was found for the three specific factors (<i>ω</i> <sub>h</sub> ranging from 0.14 to 0.18) compared to the general factor (<i>ω</i> <sub>h</sub> = 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47407,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Finnish version of the pain catastrophizing scale in chronic low back pain.\",\"authors\":\"Jani Mikkonen, Ville Leinonen, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Riikka Holopainen, Kristian Ekström, Petteri Koho, Olavi Airaksinen, Juan V Luciano, Jaime Navarrete, Randy Neblett\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/sjpain-2024-0034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The translation process was performed with established guidelines. The PCS-FI was psychometrically validated using 92 participants with CLBP and 53 pain-free controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Structural validity with CFA supported a bifactor solution. However, low reliability was found for the three specific factors (<i>ω</i> <sub>h</sub> ranging from 0.14 to 0.18) compared to the general factor (<i>ω</i> <sub>h</sub> = 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2024-0034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2024-0034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Finnish version of the pain catastrophizing scale in chronic low back pain.
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 (ωh ranging from 0.14 to 0.18) compared to the general factor (ωh = 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.