+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinimetric properties of the Nepali version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in individuals with chronic pain

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated negative cognitive response related to pain. It is commonly assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Translation and validation of the scale in a new language would facilitate cross-cultural comparisons of the role that pain catastrophizing plays in patient function.


          The aim of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the PCS into Nepali (Nepali version of PCS [PCS-NP]) and evaluate its clinimetric properties.


          We translated, cross-culturally adapted, and performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the PCS-NP in a sample of adults with chronic pain (N=143). We then confirmed the resulting factor model in a separate sample (N=272) and compared this model with 1-, 2-, and 3-factor models previously identified using confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). We also computed internal consistencies, test–retest reliabilities, standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), and limits of agreement with 95% confidence interval (LOA 95%) of the PCS-NP scales. Concurrent validity with measures of depression, anxiety, and pain intensity was assessed by computing Pearson’s correlation coefficients.


          The PCS-NP was comprehensible and culturally acceptable. We extracted a two-factor solution using EFA and confirmed this model using CFAs in the second sample. Adequate fit was also found for a one-factor model and different two- and three-factor models based on prior studies. The PCS-NP scores evidenced excellent reliability and temporal stability, and demonstrated validity via moderate-to-strong associations with measures of depression, anxiety, and pain intensity. The SEM and MDC for the PCS-NP total score were 2.52 and 7.86, respectively (range of PCS scores 0–52). LOA 95% was between −15.17 and +16.02 for the total PCS-NP scores.


          The PCS-NP is a valid and reliable instrument to assess pain catastrophizing in Nepalese individuals with chronic pain.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

          In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale.

            The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS; Sullivan et al., Psychol. Assess. 7, 524-532, 1995) has recently been developed to assess three components of catastrophizing: rumination, magnification, and helplessness. We conducted three studies to evaluate the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the PCS. In Study I, we conducted principal-components analysis with oblique rotation to replicate the three factors of the PCS. Gender differences on the original PCS subscales were also analyzed. In Study II, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the adequacy of fit of four alternative models. We also evaluated evidence for concurrent and discriminant validity. In Study III, we evaluated the ability of the PCS and subscales to differentiate between the responses of clinic (students seeking treatment) and nonclinic undergraduate samples. Also, in the clinic sample, we evaluated evidence of concurrent and predictive validity for the PCS. The internal consistency reliability indices for the total PCS and subscales were examined in all three studies. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Measurement error.


                Author and article information

                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                31 January 2018
                : 11
                : 265-276
                [1 ]Department of Physiotherapy, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Nepal
                [2 ]Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand
                [3 ]Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Saurab Sharma, Department of Physiotherapy, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel Hospital Kathmandu University Hospital, PO Box No 11008, Dhulikhel, Nepal, Tel +977 98 4163 4043, Fax +977 1 49 0707, Email saurabsharma1@ 123456gmail.com
                © 2018 Sharma et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Original Research


                Comment on this article