Reliability, Validity, and Sensitivity Measures of Expanded and Revised Version of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) in Iranian Patients with Neuropathic and Non-Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess validity, reliability, and sensitivity of the Persian version of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2) in patients with neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain. DESIGN: Beaton's guideline was used to translate and adapt the SF-MPQ-2 to Persian. SUBJECTS: One hundred eighty-four patients with subacute and chronic non-neuropathic pain and 74 patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (total 258) attending multidisciplinary pain clinic participated in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were estimated for participants who had completed the questionnaire in the morning and evening of the first day. The visual analog scale (VAS) and the present pain intensity (PPI) were also recorded to test convergent validity of the questionnaire. Sensitivity to change was examined after a standard treatment and validated by means of the patient global impression of change (PGIC) in addition to VAS and PPI. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to find possible components. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was 0.906, which showed high internal consistency. ICC (0.941) revealed test-retest reliability. There was high correlation between the mean VAS and the mean total score (r = 0.926). Patients in different levels of PPI and PGIC exhibited significant differences among their mean total scores (P < 0.05). EFA revealed four components similar to the original SF-MPQ-2. CONCLUSION: The Persian translation of the expanded and revised version of the SF-MPQ-2 is a highly reliable, sensitive, and valid instrument to evaluate pain in patients with and without neuropathic etiology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".