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...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ddd.uab.cat:303737 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/303737 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.1515/sjpain-2024-0034 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Pain catastrophizing scale Chronic low back pain Validation Reliability Cross-cultural adaptation Finnish Catastrophization/psychology Low Back Pain/psychology Finland Chronic Pain/psychology Pain Measurement/methods Psychometrics/standards Quality of Life/psychology Translations |
| Resumo: | 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. |
|---|