CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPediatric Pain Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian pain catastrophizing scale in patients with low back pain

Open access
Fernandes, Linda, Storheim, Kjersti, Lochting, Ida, Grotle, Margreth·2012·BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-13-111PMC PMC3407790
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pain catastrophizing has been found to be an important predictor of disability and days lost from work in patients with low back pain. The most commonly used outcome measure to identify pain catastrophizing is the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). To enable the use of the PCS in clinical settings and research in Norwegian speaking patients, the PCS had to be translated. The purpose of this study was therefore to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PCS into Norwegian and to test internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility of the PCS. METHODS: The PCS was translated before it was tested for psychometric properties. Patients with subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain aged 18 years or more were recruited from primary and secondary care. Validity of the PCS was assessed by evaluating data quality (missing, floor and ceiling effects), principal components analysis, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and construct validity (Spearman's rho). Reproducibility analyses included standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, limits of agreement, and intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: A total of 38 men and 52 women (n = 90), with a mean (SD) age of 47.6 (11.7) years, were included for baseline testing. A subgroup of 61 patients was included for test-retest assessments. The Norwegian PCS was easy-to-comprehend. The principal components analysis supported a three-factor structure, internal consistency was satisfactory for the PCS total score (α 0.90) and the subscales rumination (α 0.83) and helplessness (α 0.86), but not for the subscale magnification (α 0.53). In total, 86% of the correlation analyses were in accordance with predefined hypothesis. The reliability analyses showed intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.74 - 0.87 for the PCS total score and subscales. The PCS total score (range 0-52 points) showed a standard error of measurement of 4.6 points and a 95% minimum detectable change estimate of 12.8 points. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian PCS total score showed acceptable psychometric properties in terms of comprehensibility, consistency, construct validity, and reproducibility when applied to patients with subacute or chronic LBP from different clinical settings. Our study support the use of the PCS total score for clinical or research purposes identifying or evaluating pain catastrophizing.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2474-13-111

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Scatter plot of intraindividual difference between test and retest against the grand mean of the total score of the Norwegian Pain Catastrophizing Scale (n = 60).
Figure 1 Scatter plot of intraindividual difference between test and retest against the grand mean of the total score of the Norwegian Pain Catastrophizing Scale (n = 60).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hesbacher PT, Rickels K, Morris RJ, Newman H, Rosenfeld H: Psychiatric illness in family practice. J Clin Psychiatry. 1980, 41: 6-10.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 130

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Fernandes, L., Storheim, K., Lochting, I., & Grotle, M.
Affiliations
Oslo University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Fernandes, Linda
ORCID
Venue
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-06-22
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
111-111
ISSN
1471-2474 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2474-13-111
PMC
PMC3407790
OpenAlex
W2063178009
Cited by
130
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › 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, cross-cultural adaptation, Norwegian translation, low back pain, psychometric properties, construct validity, internal consistency, reproducibility, test-retest reliability, minimal detectable change, rumination, helplessness, magnification
MeSH terms
Cross-Cultural Comparison, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Norway, Pain Measurement, Primary Health Care, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Low Back Pain, Catastrophization

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