MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7115015211 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaf116.068

68 The French-Canadian validation and adaptation of the pain coping questionnaire

2025· article· en· W7115015211 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct validityCoping (psychology)Exploratory factor analysisPsychometricsInternal consistencyConcurrent validityCorrelationReliability (semiconductor)Face validity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Musculoskeletal pain affects one in four children and is the fourth leading cause of years lived with disability among children and adolescents. The Pain Coping Questionnaire (PCQ), specifically designed for children and adolescents, is a self-reported measure of pain coping strategies that has shown good psychometric properties. The questionnaire has been adapted in multiple languages. However, a French-Canadian version remains unavailable. Objectives This research sought to adapt and validate a French-Canadian version of the PCQ (PCQ-F) for adolescents with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Design/Methods The PCQ was translated into French using a forward-backward translation method. Experts and patients reviewed the translated version for relevance and clarity. This version was then administered to adolescents (ages 10 to 20) experiencing significant MSK pain at a paediatric hospital in Montreal. Construct validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis. Divergent validity was evaluated through Pearson correlation between the Child Post-Traumatic Stress Index and the PCQ-F. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. A priori hypotheses were examined regarding mean differences related to sex, age, pain level, emotional state, and perceived pain control. Results A total of 163 participants completed the questionnaire. The French-Canadian adaptation of the PCQ resulted in a 31-item version with six domains: “Seeking Social Support,” “Positive Self-Statement,” “Behavioral/Cognitive Distraction,” “Externalizing,” “Problem-solving,” and “Internalizing/Catastrophizing,” which explained 57.07% of the variance. Factor analysis confirmed its suitability, demonstrating excellent internal consistency (α = 0.87). Concurrent validity revealed a moderate correlation with the CPTS-RI score (rs = 0.50, p = 0.001), while construct validity analyses indicated a moderate but significant positive correlation between current pain severity (rs = 0.29), emotional pain reactiveness (rs = 0.41), and coping strategies. Participants experiencing more severe pain scored higher on the "Internalizing/Catastrophizing" subscale (p < 0.001). Weak but significant correlations were observed between pain levels and "Seeking Social Support" (p = 0.028) as well as "Problem-Solving" (p < 0.05). Regression analysis demonstrated that individuals with greater emotional pain reactiveness (β = 0.474) and coping effectiveness (β = 0.194) tend to engage in more coping strategies, thereby predicting a higher PCQ-F global score (adj. R² = 0.20). Conclusion In conclusion, the factorial analysis of the PCQ-F demonstrated a culturally and statistically satisfactory structure in the French-Canadian language. Given its uniqueness in identifying vulnerable pain coping mechanisms, its cultural adaptation offers a valid and reliable tool for the French paediatric population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicPediatric Pain Management Techniques→French-language works237,207→