Validity, Reliability, and Assessment Sensitivity of the Japanese Version of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 in Japanese Patients with Neuropathic and Non-Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to define the validity, reliability, and assessment sensitivity of the Japanese version of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2-J). DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The original SF-MPQ-2 was translated into Japanese to create the SF-MPQ-2-J, and the cross-cultural equivalence of assessment tool for Japanese patients was validated. The reliability of the SF-MPQ-2-J was assessed using internal consistency, reliability coefficients (Cronbach's α), and reproducibility coefficients (intraclass correlation coefficient) obtained using 234 patients with chronic pain. SF-MPQ-2-J validity was assessed based on associations identified between total and subscale scores compared with other assessment methods. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also performed to test the theoretical structure of the SF-MPQ-2-J. RESULTS: The internal consistencies calculated included continuous pain, α=0.893; intermittent pain, α=0.875; predominantly neuropathic pain, α=0.917; affective descriptors, α=0.857; and total score, α=0.907. The reproducibility coefficients calculated included continuous pain, ρ=0.81; intermittent pain, ρ=0.78; predominantly neuropathic pain, ρ=0.85; affective descriptors, ρ=0.75; and total score, ρ=0.83. The CFA showed that the model fit of the readily interpretable subscales was acceptable, and the goodness of fit index value was 0.917. In addition, the mean predominantly neuropathic pain subscale score was found to be significantly higher for patients with neuropathic pain vs non-neuropathic pain. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the reliability and validity of the SF-MPQ-2-J are excellent, and the SF-MPQ-2-J represents a cross-cultural equivalent to SF-MPQ-2. Consequently, the latter is suitable for research and clinical use, and for discriminating neuropathic pain from non-neuropathic pain.
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 | 0.033 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".