Pain Catastrophizing Scale for Francophone Adolescents: A Preliminary Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In adults, it is well known that high levels of pain catastrophizing are related to increased pain and disability as well as to heightened anxiety and depression. However, due to the lack of a measure of pain catastrophizing adapted for francophone adolescents, little is known about the role of catastrophizing in this population. OBJECTIVES: To adapt the French version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and to examine the psychometric properties and factorial structure of the PCS for Francophone Adolescents (PCS-Ado). METHODS: The French version of the PCS was modified by a group of experts. The format of the questions was modified to be appropriate for adolescents aged between 12 and 18 years. To assess the psychometric properties of the PCS-Ado, 345 adolescents completed the PCS-Ado and questionnaires measuring depression, anxiety and intensity of pain. Twelve to 16 weeks later, participants completed the questionnaires again to examine the test-retest reliability of the PCS-Ado. RESULTS: Results revealed a three-factor solution similar to the original PCS. In addition, results revealed that PCS-Ado had good internal consistency (PCS-Ado total: 0.85; rumination: 0.72; magnification: 0.66; helplessness: 0.74), and high test-retest reliability (r=0.73). Finally, significant correlations among catastrophizing, depression, anxiety and pain intensity support the construct validity of the PCS-Ado. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the PCS-Ado is valid and reliable with francophone adolescents. Further research is required to assess the validity of the PCS-Ado in clinical settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".