Confirmatory factor analysis of the Korean version of the short-form McGill pain questionnaire with chronic pain patients: A comparison of alternative models

12Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The Short Form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) is the most widely used assessment of the quality and intensity of pain. In previous validation studies, the factor structure of the SF-MPQ varied widely from various two-factor structures to a five-factor structure, although research on the SF-MPQ quite consistently supports its two-factor structure (i.e., sensory and affective) across different countries and languages. In Korea, the results of exploratory factor analysis of a Korea version of SF-MPQ (KSF-MPQ) showed 2-factor structure consisting of 'sensory' and 'affective' excluding two items such as splitting and heavy. As an attempt to further validate the KSF-MPQ, the purpose of this study was to confirm whether the KSF-MPQ model is an appropriate model for chronic pain patients in Korea by comparing several alternative models of the SF-MPQ. Findings: A total of 150 chronic pain patients seeking treatment in Seoul, Korea, participated and completed the KSF-MPQ. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the KSF-MPQ model and several alternative models. The results indicated that the adjusted KSF-MPQ model showed the best fit to the data among the models in chronic pain patients in Korea. Conclusions: The results showed the KSF-MPQ is cross-culturally equivalent to the original questionnaire. Thus, the KSF-MPQ is valid measurement for assessing the quality and intensity of pain to chronic pain patients and may be helpful in clinical and research settings in Korea.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Choi, A. A., Son, C. N., Lee, J. H., & Cho, S. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Korean version of the short-form McGill pain questionnaire with chronic pain patients: A comparison of alternative models. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0195-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free