Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the German version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In patients with chronic pain, catastrophizing is a significant determinant of self-rated pain intensity and disability. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was developed to assist with both treatment planning and outcome assessment; to date, no German version has been validated. METHODS: A cross-cultural adaptation of the PCS into German was carried out, strictly according to recommended methods. A questionnaire booklet containing the PCS, visual analogue scales (numeric rating scale) for pain intensity and general health, the ZUNG self-rating depression scale, the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ), the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and the Roland-Morris (RM) disability questionnaire was completed by 111 patients with chronic low back pain (mean age, 49 years), 100 of which also completed it again 7 days later. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha (internal reliability) for the three subsections of the PCS--helplessness, magnification, rumination--and for the whole questionnaire (PCSwhole) were .89, .67, .88, and .92, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficients of agreement for the reproducibility were .81, .67, .78, and .80, respectively. The PCSwhole scores correlated with the other scores as follows: pain intensity r=.26, general health r=-.29, ZUNG r=.52, MSPQ r=.53, FABQactivity r=.51, FABQwork r=.61 and RM r=.57. Factor analysis revealed three factors, with an almost identical factor structure to that reported in previous studies. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of our German version of the PCS were comparable to those reported in previous studies for the original English version. It represents a valuable tool in the assessment of German-speaking chronic low back pain patients. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the German version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale AbstractObjective In patients with chronic pain, catastrophizing is a significant determinant of self-rated pain intensity and disability. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was developed to assist with both treatment planning and outcome assessment; to date, 2

Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale for acute low back pain

“…Pain catastrophizing correlated with all evaluated constructs, except control of locus of internal pain and among doctors and health professionals, corroborating previous results 26,29 (Table 2). The correlations were considered moderate and weak, showing that, although the constructs are close, they are not redundant.…”

“…The average level of pain catastrophizing was 29.2 (± 13.1) points, corroborating the results of other versions 26,29 and going against those of Fernandes et al 25 . In this study, the average level was 14 points, but the population was of young adults with subacute lower back pain, which may have led to different results.…”

“…Future studies will probably verify if the change of the name of the category will result in a lesser distortion in the use of the categories and a better quality of the metrics. The intra and inter examiner reliabilities were considered through the weighted Kappa Coefficient as substantial, and by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as high, thus corroborating previous results 26,29 . These results support the replicability of the Brazilian version of the adjusted PCS.…”

“…Another hypothesis is that the participants were in doubt because the answers "intense" and "always" are two different categories of words: the first refers to intensity, and the second to frequency. In the study of Meyer et al 29 of adaptation of the PCS to German, this observation was also made and the option of answers was altered. In spite of this, in the present study, in a discussion of the expert committee, they did not believe it necessary to make any changes in the options of the answers, other than a simple translation, since the original scale had already been developed and applied that way.…”

How well do observed functional limitations explain the variance in Roland Morris scores in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain undergoing physiotherapy?

“…), the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire [RM; measures 24 activity limitations due to back pain (score 0-24: higher score, increased disability)] [7,33]; the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire [35,41]; the Pain Catastrophising Questionnaire [25,39]; and Psychological Disturbance [9,22] given by the combined scores of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (heightened somatic awareness) [19] and Modified Zung Self-Rating Depression Questionnaire [47]. In each case, higher scores indicated a higher degree of the attribute being measured.…”