Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of the pain catastrophizing scale among patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Abstract

[Purpose] This study describes the cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability of the Turkish version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. [Methods] The validity of the Turkish version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale was assessed by evaluating data quality (missing data and floor and ceiling effects), principal components analysis, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), and construct validity (Spearman’s rho). Reproducibility analyses included standard measurement error, minimum detectable change, limits of agreement, and intraclass correlation coefficients. [Results] Sixty-four adult patients with ankylosing spondylitis with a mean age of 42.2 years completed the study. Factor analysis revealed that all questionnaire items could be grouped into two factors. Excellent internal consistency was found, with a Chronbach’s alpha value of 0.95. Reliability analyses showed an intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval) of 0.96 for the total score. There was a low correlation coefficient between the Turkish version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and body mass index, pain levels at rest and during activity, health-related quality of life, and fear and avoidance behaviors. [Conclusion] The results of this study indicate that the Turkish version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale is a valid and reliable clinical and research tool for patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

Development of the Hausa Version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation in Mixed Urban and Rural Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

“…This nding is similar to the reports of many validations conducted in different samples of individuals with chronic pain [39,79,80,82]. On the contrary, other validations found the two-factor structure of the PCS to exhibit adequate model t [48,77]. In another vein, the Huijer et al [34] found the one-factor, two-factor (based on the authors' EFA), and Sullivan's original three-factor structures all exhibited adequate t to the Arabic population.…”

“…The PCS has been widely reported to poses a three-factor structure consisting of the rumination, magni cation and helplessness subscales following EFA [24, 37, 39-42, 44, 45, 47, 65, 76] even though minor differences exist regarding how the PCS items loaded onto factors. A two-factor structure has been also reported in the literature [24,48,77,[79][80][81][82]. In the present study, the result of the EFA with Promax rotation suggested the same three-factor structure as found in the original English version [23].…”

“…Essentially, it has been proved to be a useful measure of pain catastrophizing in various pain conditions such as chronic LBP [25], chronic neck pain [26], anterior knee pain [27], neuropathic pain [28], postsurgical pain [29], soft tissue injuries [30], respiratory tract illness [31] and dental procedures [32]. Furthermore, the scale has been culturally adapted and validated into many languages/cultures such as the Arabic [33,34], Afrikaans [35], Brazilian Portuguese [36], Catalans [37], Chinese [38], German [39], Italian [40], Korean [41], Malay [42], Norwegian [43], Simpli ed Chinese [44], Sinhala [45], Swedish [46], Spanish [47], Turkish [48] and Xhosa [35] versions.…”

Using Wearable Accelerometers in a Community Service Context to Categorize Falling Behavior

“…(a) We simply use a clinical test to determine who has fall risk in order to categories the people with and without a fall risk (this includes efficiency); (b) We use the results in (a) to compare accelerometer features, and then use ttest analysis to verify the categorization of fall risk; (c) Finally, we use the results from (a) to compare the MSE results, and we then use t-test analysis to verify the categorization of fall risk. Since scales of clinical tests have clear boundary scores, Karthikeyan et al [42], Kim et al [43], İlçin et al [44] and Li et al [45] proposed that balance is considered as impaired when the score is 23 or below for BBS. Barry et al [37], Shumway-Cook et al [46], Lindsay et al [47] and Kwoka et al [48] recommend that it is considered a high risk if the time for TUG is greater than 13.5 s. Furthermore, in clinical judgments of the SPMSQ, there may be a risk of dementia if a subject answered three or more questions incorrectly in the test.…”

Factor structure and internal consistency of a Swedish version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale

“…The subjective psychological experiences and accompanying behaviors that constitute catastrophizing are most commonly assessed with self‐report measures, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is one of the most widely used questionnaires. The PCS has been validated in a number of languages and for a number of pain populations for adults . However, thus far, no study has evaluated the validity and reliability of a Swedish version of the scale.…”