The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of short‐form McGill Pain Questionnaire in patients with leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. BACKGROUND: Pain is one of the most frequent and significant problems encountered by nurses practice across the world. The Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire was widely translated and used to assess the pain experience of several types of patients because it combines the properties of the standard McGill Pain Questionnaire but takes substantially less time to administer. DESIGN: The study used psychometric testing to establish reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. METHODS: A convenience sample of 160 patients with leukaemia in Turkey was used to collect data regarding pain evaluation. The original version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, adapted into Turkish, was tested for internal consistency, content validity, construct validity and concurrent validity. RESULTS: Internal consistency was found adequate at both assessments with Cronbach's α 0.88 for test and 0.91 for retest. For reliability of the total, sensory, affective and evaluative total pain intensity, high intraclass correlations were demonstrated (0.85, 0.84, 0.82 and 0.70, respectively). Correlation of total, sensory and affective score with the numerical rating scale was tested for construct validity demonstrating r = 0.61 (p < 0.01) for test and r = 0.68 (p < 0.01) for retest. Correlation with blood pressure values for concurrent validity was found to be r = 0.78 (p < 0.001) for test and r = 0.73 (p < 0.001) for retest. CONCLUSION: Turkish version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire has shown statistically acceptable levels of reliability and validity for pain evaluation in patients with leukaemia. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study provided evidence that the Turkish version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing pain. This scale can be used to assess nursing interventions aimed at decreasing pain and efficacy of the treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".