Evaluation of the Arabic version of the Chronic Pain Grade scale: Psychometric properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To increase our understanding of chronic pain in clinical and research contexts, an assessment of its dimensions using reliable and valid self-reported pain measures is imperative. However, well-validated Arabic chronic pain assessment scales are lacking. The Chronic Pain Grade (CPG) scale has been used worldwide, yet an Arabic version of the CPG scale has not yet been validated. Thus, we conducted this study to demonstrate the psychometric properties, including reliability, convergent validity, and construct validity of the Arabic CPG scale. A cross-sectional study was conducted in two hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected from a convenience sample of 233 chronic pain patients. The confirmatory factor analysis showed an excellent fit with the factor structure of the CPG scale and, thus, supported construct validity. The two identified subscales were pain intensity and pain disability. Convergent validity was supported by having significant correlations between the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and CPG subscales. Internal consistency reliability was demonstrated, as Cronbach's α was 0.916 for pain intensity and 0.815 for pain disability. This study provides evidence that the Arabic CPG scale is a reliable and valid measure of chronic pain dimensions, including pain intensity, and pain-related disability. This Arabic version of the CPG scale has the potential to expand research and clinical assessment in the Arab world. Future studies are required for further validation.
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 | 0.021 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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; 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".