Turkish Validity and Reliability of Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 in Patients with Chronic Cervical Radicular Pain Due to Disc Herniation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish edition of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2) among chronic cervical radicular pain (CRRP) cases caused by disc herniation. The secondary aim of the study was to evaluate the relationship between Turkish Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (TR-SFMPQ-2) and other pain and disability scales. Materials and Methods: The study was based on data from 103 cases of CRRP patients evaluated at the Algology outpatient clinic. In addition to TR-SF-MPQ-2, the Numerical Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale, and a 4-question neuropathic pain questionnaire were completed. Cronbach's alpha (α) and intra-class correlation (ICC) tests were performed for reliability analyses. Confirmatory factor and Spearman correlation analysis were applied to assess structural and content validity, respectively. Results: Both the internal (α= 0.921) and test-retest reliability of the TR-SFMPQ-2 were high (all ICC values >0.9 and P < .001) for the total and 4 subgroups (continuous, intermittent, neuropathic, and emotional). The total and subscale scores of the TR-SF-MPQ-2 were in correlation with other scale results (r= 0.404-0.648, P < .001). Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the scale exhibited 4 distinct factors. Conclusion: The TR-SF-MPQ-2 is a valid and reliable scale for Turkish patients suffering from CRRP.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".