Cited by 59Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UsePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Nepali versions of numerical pain rating scale and global rating of change

Open access
Sharma, Saurab, Palanchoke, Joshna, Reed, Darren, Haxby Abbott, J.·2017·Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pain intensity and patients' impression of global improvement are widely used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice and research. They are commonly assessed using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Global Rating of Change (GROC) questionnaires. The GROC is essential as an anchor for evaluating the psychometric properties of PROMs. Both of these PROMs are translated to many languages and have shown excellent psychometric properties. Their availability in Nepali would facilitate pain research and cross-cultural comparison of research findings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to translate and cross-culturally adapt the NPRS and GROC into Nepali and to assess the psychometric properties of the Nepali version of the NPRS (NPRS-NP). METHODS: After translating and cross-culturally adapting the NPRS and GROC into Nepali using recommended guidelines, NPRS-NP was administered to 104 individuals with musculoskeletal pain twice. The Nepali version of the GROC (GROC-NP) was administered at the follow-up for anchor-based assessment. (1) Test-retest reliability and minimum detectable change (MDC) among the stable group, (2) construct validity (by single sample t-test within the improved group and independent sample t-test between groups), and (3) concurrent validity were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to determine the responsiveness of the NPRS-NP using the area under the curve (AUC), and minimum important changes (MIC) for small, medium and large improvements. RESULTS: Significant cultural adaptations were required to obtain relevant Nepali versions of both the NPRS and GROC. The NPRS-NP showed excellent test-retest reliability and a MDC of 1.13 points. NPRS-NP demonstrated a good construct validity by significant within-group difference in mean of NPRS score- t(63)= 7.57, P < 0.001 and statistically significant difference of mean score- t(98)= -4.24, P < .001 between the stable and improved groups. It demonstrated moderate concurrent correlation with the GROC-NP; r = 0.43, P < 0.01. Responsiveness of the NPRS-NP was shown at three levels with AUC = 0.68-0.82, and MIC = 1.17-1.33. CONCLUSIONS: The NPRS and GROC were successfully translated and culturally adapted into Nepali. The NPRS-NP demonstrated good reliability, validity and responsiveness in assessing musculoskeletal pain intensity in a Nepali population.

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/s12955-017-0812-8

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [21]Nepal Go: National Population and housing census 2011 (National Report). In. Edited by Statistics CBo, vol. 1. Kathmandu: NHPC; 2012.
  2. [41]Jensen MP, Karoly P: Handbook of pain assessment, 3rd edition edn. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharma, S., Palanchoke, J., Reed, D., & Haxby Abbott, J.
Affiliations
  • Kathmandu University (NP)
  • Scheer Memorial Adventist Hospital (NP)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Sharma, Saurab
Venue
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published
2017-12
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
236-236
ISSN
1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2772680723
Cited by
59
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
numerical pain rating scale, global rating of change, Nepali translation, cross-cultural adaptation, patient-reported outcome measures, pain intensity, musculoskeletal pain, test-retest reliability, minimal detectable change, construct validity, concurrent validity, responsiveness, Nepal, cultural adaptation of questionnaires
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Adult, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nepal, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, ROC Curve, Translations, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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