Cited by 43Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Factor structure and internal consistency of a Swedish version of the pain catastrophizing scale

Kemani, Mike K., Grimby‐Ekman, Anna, Lundgren, Jesper, Sullivan, Michael, Lundberg, Mari·2019·Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pain catastrophizing is highly relevant to assess in the context of long-standing pain. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a well-established questionnaire used to measure catastrophizing in individuals with long-standing pain. So far, no Swedish translation has been evaluated in regard to validity and reliability. The aims of this study were to translate the PCS questionnaire from English to Swedish, and to investigate its construct validity (face, content, and structural validity) and reliability (internal consistency). METHODS: We translated the original English version of the PCS to Swedish and collected item responses from 194 persons suffering from primarily long-standing musculoskeletal pain. We used confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate structural validity, and tested the model fit of a one-factor model, an oblique two-factor model, and an oblique three-factor model. We evaluated the measure's reliability in regard to internal consistency calculated with Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: A three-factor model comprising a four-item rumination factor, a three-item magnification factor, and a six-item helplessness factor provided the best fit to the data. Internal consistency was adequate and Cronbach's α was 0.92 for the entire scale, 0.84 for the rumination subscale; 0.69 for the magnification subscale, and 0.89 for the helplessness subscale. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated adequacy of a three-factor solution and the questionnaire's internal consistency, and provide initial support for the structural validity and internal consistency of a Swedish version of the PCS. Future studies should replicate the study in larger samples and extend the current evaluation in regard to validity and reliability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/aas.13246

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kemani, M. K., Grimby‐Ekman, A., Lundgren, J., Sullivan, M., & Lundberg, M.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
Corresponding author
Kemani, Mike K.
Venue
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-08-21
Volume
63
Issue
2
Pages
259-266
ISSN
  • 0001-5172 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-6576
OpenAlex
W2888706835
Cited by
43
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Swedish translation, factor structure, internal consistency, construct validity, rumination, magnification, helplessness, chronic pain
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sweden, Translations, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Catastrophization, Musculoskeletal Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review