The McGill Pain Questionnaire, Japanese Version, Reconsidered: Confirming the Theoretical Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on a tripartite theoretical model of pain, the Pain Rating Index (PRI) of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) continues to be one of the most frequently used instruments to measure clinical pain. However, language and cultural barriers have hindered its wide use and standardization in Japan. Although a number of exploratory factor analysis studies have failed to support consistently the theoretical structure of the MPQ, a few previous confirmatory factor analysis studies did statistically support the a priori model. OBJECTIVE: To test, through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the theoretical structure of a Japanese version of the MPQ (JMPQ), which followed a format similar to that of the original MPQ. DESIGN: This study used CFA on prospectively collected data from 199 consecutive outpatients with chronic pain at a university hospital to test the theoretical structure of the JMPQ. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: CFA was completed on the first 16 PRI subclass scores; this process yielded a well fitting final model that explained 92% of the covariance in the observed data. The results supported the hypothesis that the sensory, affective and evaluative subscales of the PRI are representative of the multidimensionality of the pain experience, with minimal overlap. It is suggested that the theoretical structure of the MPQ is maintained in the JMPQ used in this study. Therefore, this study is the first step toward standardization of the JMPQ, serving as a cultural bridge in the field of pain medicine between Japan and English-speaking nations such as Canada.
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".