Analysis of perceptual characteristics of pain describing in words caused by occupational cervicobrachial disorder and similar disease

Abstract

In Research I, the sixteen words were supported as the pain descriptors by non-medical and medical subjects who have experienced these pains. Five perceptual characteristics (duration, interval, depth, area and intensity) of the pains described by the sixteen words were estimated by five-point scales and expressed in pentagon-profiles. Pains which were long duration and repeated frequently were deep and strong. Short and infrequent pains were shallow, weak and small. The long duration pains are deservedly intolerable than the short pains. The short pains are deservedly tolerable. The pentagon-profiles of the sixteen pains were ranked in order of " intolerability ". In Research II, a Japanese version of MPQ was compiled and analyzed by the same procedure as those in Research I. The thirty-five words were supported and differentiated from emotional or evaluative words by the same subjects as participated in Research I. These words were also arranged by the rank order of intolerability. Reliability of the subjects' estimation of the pains was supported by results of the words which used common to both Researches I and II.

Systematic review of cross-cultural adaptations of McGill Pain Questionnaire reveals a paucity of clinimetric testing

“…? 0 Italian [12] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italian [61] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Japanese [63] 0 0 0 0 0 0 b Japanese [36] 0 0 À 0 þ 0 b Japanese [37] 0 0 À 0 0 0 b Japanese [21] ? 0 À 0 þ 0 Norwegian [56] 0 0 0 ?…”

The McGill Pain Questionnaire, Japanese Version, Reconsidered: Confirming the Theoretical Structure

“…The JMPQ used in this study, which followed a format similar to that of the original MPQ, comprised 78 pain descriptors in 20 subclasses and a five-point intensity scale (the present pain intensity scale) (1). Pain descriptors adopted in this study had been translated by Satow et al (21). Back-translation procedures were completed by a bilingual English linguist to ensure the adequacy of the Japanese version (18).…”

The McGill Pain Questionnaire ‐ Japanese Version, Reconsidered: Confirming the Reliability and Validity

“…They reduced the number of pain descriptors and made their version of the Japanese MPQ (JMPQ-S); this version was not similar to the original format, eg, it was shortened. Furthermore, although they evaluated its reliability and validity, the JMPQ-S was performed only on patients with a limited number of diseases (14). Satow et al pointed out that when the JMPQ-S is used on controls without pain, the pain intensity corresponding to each of the pain descriptors has a tendency to be estimated as the midpoint in the visual analogue scale (VAS), and argued that therefore the JMPQ-S is an unreliable pain rating scale.…”

“…Studies thus far on the JMPQ-S have been performed only on patients with limited diseases, using reconstructed versions different from the original format (14,15). We used a Japanese version of the MPQ (JMPQ) that followed a format that parallels the original MPQ in order to enable more direct comparison of study findings internationally, so that the psychometric properties of the JMPQ may reach cross-cultural equivalence.…”

“…In this study we used a translation-based Japanese version of the MPQ adapted from the original by Satow et al that involved transla-tion from a bilingual English linguist and that followed a format parallel to the original MPQ (14,15). Back-translation procedures were carried out to ensure adequacy of the Japanese version (11-13).…”