Examining the Cross-cultural Validity of the English Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire Using the Matched Moderated Regression Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pain is identified as the third largest health problem in the world, impacting sleep, physical functioning, and psychologic functioning. Pain has been viewed as a multidimensional experience influenced by biology, psychology, cultural conditioning, expectancies, and social contingencies. The aims of this study were to examine the psychometric properties and the differential item functioning (DIF) of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) to test the cultural differences in verbally based pain expression. METHODS: Data were drawn from the medical records of 134 Hispanic and 134 non-Hispanic White patients with pain. Cases were matched on total SF-MPQ score, sex, and age. Estimates of reliability and validity were assessed. Using a traditional moderated regression approach, each of the 15 items on the SF-MPQ was analyzed for DIF using matched moderated regression methodology. RESULTS: Internal consistency was high: Hispanics 0.90 and non-Hispanics 0.89. Factor analysis revealed 2 components for each ethnic group. DIF analyses revealed statistically significant group differences for the 5 items (ie, throbbing, gnawing, aching, tiring-exhausting, and sickening) potentially due to cultural-linguistic factors. The remaining 10 items revealed no significant differences. Group differences were not accounted for by sex, age, marital status, education, pain location, or pain duration. DISCUSSION: Test bias was relatively small (0.74) given the entire scale of the SF-MPQ (0 to 45), indicating that this measure seems to be used equivalently across these 2 groups. This study shows 1 method in evaluating the cross-cultural validity of pain assessment instruments, and contributes to the understanding of cross-cultural variability in item reporting on the SF-MPQ.
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 | 0.053 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".