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。

IF 1.5 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Scandinavian Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-11-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1515/sjpain-2024-0034
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:13 项疼痛灾难化量表(PCS)是最常用的疼痛灾难化测量方法。以前一直没有经过验证的芬兰语版 PCS。我们的目标是将最初的英语版疼痛灾难化量表翻译成芬兰语(PCS-FI),然后评估:(i) PCS-FI 的结构效度,采用确证因子分析 (CFA);(ii) 内部可靠性,采用 Cronbach's alpha、Omega 和 Omega 层次分析;(iii) 与幸福感、生活质量、睡眠质量、中枢敏感症状和焦虑等测量指标的收敛效度;(iv) 患有慢性腰背痛 (CLBP) 的参与者与无痛对照组之间的已知组效度:方法:翻译过程按照既定准则进行。方法:翻译过程按照既定准则进行,并使用 92 名慢性腰背痛患者和 53 名无痛对照者对 PCS-FI 进行了心理计量学验证:结果:CFA 的结构效度支持双因素解决方案。然而,与一般因子(ω h = 0.88)相比,三个特定因子的信度较低(ω h 在 0.14 至 0.18 之间),这表明只应使用总分。聚合效度分析表明,该量表与其他患者报告的结果量表之间存在令人满意的相关性和中等效应大小。CLBP患者的PCS-FI总分明显高于无痛对照组:PCS-FI似乎是一种有效、可靠的工具,可用于评估芬兰语人群中与疼痛相关的灾难化程度。本研究于2022年1月31日获得了北萨沃医院区研究伦理委员会的伦理批准,批准号为2131/2022。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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 (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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Scandinavian Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Pain catastrophizing levels differentiate between common diseases with pain: HIV, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome, and breast cancer survivors. Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Finnish version of the pain catastrophizing scale in chronic low back pain. To speak or not to speak? A secondary data analysis to further explore the context-insensitive avoidance scale. Intrathecal pain treatment for severe pain in patients with terminal cancer: A retrospective analysis of treatment-related complications and side effects. Psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in patients with subacute and chronic low back pain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1