A validation study of the Cantonese Chinese version of short form McGill pain questionnaire 2 in Cantonese-speaking patients with chronic pain in Hong Kong.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-17 DOI:10.1111/papr.13319
Fiona Pui Yee Tsui, Stanley Sau Ching Wong, Timmy Chi Wing Chan, Yvonne Lee, Chi Wai Cheung
{"title":"A validation study of the Cantonese Chinese version of short form McGill pain questionnaire 2 in Cantonese-speaking patients with chronic pain in Hong Kong.","authors":"Fiona Pui Yee Tsui, Stanley Sau Ching Wong, Timmy Chi Wing Chan, Yvonne Lee, Chi Wai Cheung","doi":"10.1111/papr.13319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study tests the reliability and validity of the Cantonese Chinese version of Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2-CC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The original Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) was translated into Cantonese Chinese version. Cantonese-speaking chronic pain patients from three pain centers in Hong Kong were recruited and asked to complete SF-MPQ-2-CC, validated Chinese versions of Identification Pain questionnaire (ID Pain), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for evaluation of convergent and divergent validity, 2 weeks apart for evaluation of internal consistency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 333 and 197 participants completed the first and second set of questionnaires, respectively. SF-MPQ-2-CC was shown to have excellent internal consistency, with an overall Cronbach's alpha value of 0.933. The overall correlation coefficient was 0.875 that shows good test-retest reliability. Construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis, where a seconder-order factor model demonstrated a good fit with our data (χ<sup>2</sup>  = 826.51, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.908, RMSEA = 0.097; SRMR = 0.063; error terms adjusted). SF-MPQ-2-CC also showed good convergent validity with Chinese versions of ID Pain (neuropathic pain) and PCS (continuous pain), and divergent validity was shown by a negative correlation with Chinese version of SF-36.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study demonstrated that SF-MPQ-2-CC is a valid and reliable pain assessment tool for Cantonese-speaking patients in Hong Kong with a wide range of chronic pain conditions. It also helps to identify the presence of neuropathic pain and negative pain cognition among respondents.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13319","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The study tests the reliability and validity of the Cantonese Chinese version of Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2-CC).

Methods: The original Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) was translated into Cantonese Chinese version. Cantonese-speaking chronic pain patients from three pain centers in Hong Kong were recruited and asked to complete SF-MPQ-2-CC, validated Chinese versions of Identification Pain questionnaire (ID Pain), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for evaluation of convergent and divergent validity, 2 weeks apart for evaluation of internal consistency.

Results: A total of 333 and 197 participants completed the first and second set of questionnaires, respectively. SF-MPQ-2-CC was shown to have excellent internal consistency, with an overall Cronbach's alpha value of 0.933. The overall correlation coefficient was 0.875 that shows good test-retest reliability. Construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis, where a seconder-order factor model demonstrated a good fit with our data (χ2  = 826.51, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.908, RMSEA = 0.097; SRMR = 0.063; error terms adjusted). SF-MPQ-2-CC also showed good convergent validity with Chinese versions of ID Pain (neuropathic pain) and PCS (continuous pain), and divergent validity was shown by a negative correlation with Chinese version of SF-36.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that SF-MPQ-2-CC is a valid and reliable pain assessment tool for Cantonese-speaking patients in Hong Kong with a wide range of chronic pain conditions. It also helps to identify the presence of neuropathic pain and negative pain cognition among respondents.

粤语中文版短格式McGill疼痛问卷2在香港讲粤语的慢性疼痛患者中的验证研究。
目的:检验《麦吉尔疼痛简易问卷2》(SF-MPQ-2-CC)的信度和效度。方法:将原麦吉尔疼痛问卷(SF-MPQ-2)翻译成粤语中文版。本研究招募来自香港三所疼痛中心的粤语慢性疼痛患者,并要求他们填写SF-MPQ-2-CC、中文版疼痛识别问卷(ID pain)、疼痛巨化量表(PCS)和简短健康调查问卷(SF-36)进行收敛效度和发散效度评估,间隔2周进行内部一致性评估。结果:共有333名参与者完成了第一套问卷,197名参与者完成了第二套问卷。SF-MPQ-2-CC具有良好的内部一致性,整体Cronbach’s alpha值为0.933。总体相关系数为0.875,重测信度良好。建构效度采用验证性因子分析进行评估,其中二阶因子模型与我们的数据吻合良好(χ2 = 826.51, p)。结论:我们的研究证明SF-MPQ-2-CC是一个有效和可靠的疼痛评估工具,适用于香港讲粤语的各种慢性疼痛患者。它也有助于确定存在神经性疼痛和负性疼痛认知的受访者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信