Confirming the Theoretical Structure of the Japanese Version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire in Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Based upon a tripartite theoretical model of pain, the Pain Rating Index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire continues to be one of the most frequently used instruments to measure clinical pain. However, differences in languages and cultural backgrounds have hindered its wide use and standardization in Japan. Although a number of exploratory factor analytic studies have failed to consistently support the theoretical structure of the instrument, a few previous confirmatory factor analytic studies did statistically support the a priori model. The purpose of this study was to test the theoretical structure of a Japanese version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, which followed a format similar to the original questionnaire, through a confirmatory factor analysis. DESIGN: This study used confirmatory factor analysis on prospectively collected data from consecutive outpatients with chronic pain at a university hospital to test the hypothesis regarding the theoretical structure of the Japanese McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The first 16 Pain Rating Index subclass scores were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis procedures that yielded a well-fitting final model that explained 91% of the covariance in the observed data. The results approximately supported the hypothesis that the sensory, affective, and evaluative subscales of the Pain Rating Index are representative of the multidimensionality of the pain experience with minimal overlap but could not disregard relatively high intercorrelations among those subscales similar to the original McGill Pain Questionnaire. It is suggested that the theoretical structure of the McGill Pain Questionnaire is approximately kept in the Japanese McGill Pain Questionnaire used in this study. Therefore, the translation-based Japanese McGill Pain Questionnaire used in this study adequately permits comparison of studies from English-speaking and non-English-speaking populations, thus facilitating the first step toward international research exchange and communications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".