The Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Pain Relief Motivation Scale in Patients With Neurogenic Chronic Pain.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Yunmei Ding, Yanyan Zhang, Shouwei Yue
{"title":"The Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Pain Relief Motivation Scale in Patients With Neurogenic Chronic Pain.","authors":"Yunmei Ding, Yanyan Zhang, Shouwei Yue","doi":"10.1016/j.pmn.2024.11.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Pain Relief Motivation Scale (PRMS) was administered to chronic pain sufferers and predicts their psychological well-being. However, the Chinese version of the PRMS has not undergone psychometric validation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The PRMS will be psychometrically validated in patients with neuropathic pain-induced chronic pain from mainland China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study involved 340 patients with neuropathic chronic pain from China. The measurability of the Chinese version of the PRMS was determined by the critical ratio between items, and reliability was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The study also examined the validity of the construction and criterion validity of the Chinese PRMS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Chinese version of the PRMS had critical ratio (CR) values ranging from 4.044 to 15.977 (p < 0.05). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.821, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the subscales ranged from 0.663 to 0.961. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) showed that five variables accounted for 77.73% of the total variance. The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) supported the framework for the assessment of the 21-item PRMS. The Chinese version of the PRMS was positively correlated with the General Self-Efficacy Scale in the correlation validity analyses (r = 0.458, p < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Chinese version of the PRMS has powerful validity and reliability and can be used to assess the level of the motivation for pain alleviation in people with pain, serving as a reference for the development of intervention programs for healthcare providers.</p>","PeriodicalId":19959,"journal":{"name":"Pain Management Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Management Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2024.11.004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Pain Relief Motivation Scale (PRMS) was administered to chronic pain sufferers and predicts their psychological well-being. However, the Chinese version of the PRMS has not undergone psychometric validation.

Objectives: The PRMS will be psychometrically validated in patients with neuropathic pain-induced chronic pain from mainland China.

Methods: This cross-sectional study involved 340 patients with neuropathic chronic pain from China. The measurability of the Chinese version of the PRMS was determined by the critical ratio between items, and reliability was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The study also examined the validity of the construction and criterion validity of the Chinese PRMS.

Results: The Chinese version of the PRMS had critical ratio (CR) values ranging from 4.044 to 15.977 (p < 0.05). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.821, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the subscales ranged from 0.663 to 0.961. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) showed that five variables accounted for 77.73% of the total variance. The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) supported the framework for the assessment of the 21-item PRMS. The Chinese version of the PRMS was positively correlated with the General Self-Efficacy Scale in the correlation validity analyses (r = 0.458, p < .001).

Conclusion: The Chinese version of the PRMS has powerful validity and reliability and can be used to assess the level of the motivation for pain alleviation in people with pain, serving as a reference for the development of intervention programs for healthcare providers.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Management Nursing
Pain Management Nursing 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
187
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This peer-reviewed journal offers a unique focus on the realm of pain management as it applies to nursing. Original and review articles from experts in the field offer key insights in the areas of clinical practice, advocacy, education, administration, and research. Additional features include practice guidelines and pharmacology updates.
×
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