Back to Journals » Journal of Pain Research » Volume 11

Clinimetric properties of the Nepali version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in individuals with chronic pain

Authors Sharma S, Thibault P, Abbott JH, Jensen MP

Received 2 October 2017

Accepted for publication 12 December 2017

Published 31 January 2018 Volume 2018:11 Pages 265—276

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S153061

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Minal Joshi

Peer reviewer comments 4

Editor who approved publication: Dr Katherine Hanlon


Saurab Sharma,1,2 Pascal Thibault,3 J Haxby Abbott,2 Mark P Jensen4

1
Department of Physiotherapy, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Nepal; 2Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand; 3Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada; 4Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Background:
Pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated negative cognitive response related to pain. It is commonly assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Translation and validation of the scale in a new language would facilitate cross-cultural comparisons of the role that pain catastrophizing plays in patient function.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the PCS into Nepali (Nepali version of PCS [PCS-NP]) and evaluate its clinimetric properties.
Methods: We translated, cross-culturally adapted, and performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the PCS-NP in a sample of adults with chronic pain (N=143). We then confirmed the resulting factor model in a separate sample (N=272) and compared this model with 1-, 2-, and 3-factor models previously identified using confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). We also computed internal consistencies, test–retest reliabilities, standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), and limits of agreement with 95% confidence interval (LOA95%) of the PCS-NP scales. Concurrent validity with measures of depression, anxiety, and pain intensity was assessed by computing Pearson’s correlation coefficients.
Results: The PCS-NP was comprehensible and culturally acceptable. We extracted a two-factor solution using EFA and confirmed this model using CFAs in the second sample. Adequate fit was also found for a one-factor model and different two- and three-factor models based on prior studies. The PCS-NP scores evidenced excellent reliability and temporal stability, and demonstrated validity via moderate-to-strong associations with measures of depression, anxiety, and pain intensity. The SEM and MDC for the PCS-NP total score were 2.52 and 7.86, respectively (range of PCS scores 0–52). LOA95% was between -15.17 and +16.02 for the total PCS-NP scores.
Conclusion: The PCS-NP is a valid and reliable instrument to assess pain catastrophizing in Nepalese individuals with chronic pain.

Keywords: measurement error, outcome measure, Bland–Altman plot, reliability, measurement properties, pain assessment

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]