Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Sep;62(9):934-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.019.

Systematic review of cross-cultural adaptations of McGill Pain Questionnaire reveals a paucity of clinimetric testing.

Author information

  • 1Musculoskeletal division, The George Institute for International Health, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia. lmenezes@george.org.au

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of this study were to identify the available cross-cultural adaptations of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), to describe the clinimetric testing that has occurred for each adaptation and to evaluate both the quality of the adaptation procedures and the clinimetric testing for each version.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:

This study is a systematic review. Searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were used to identify relevant studies. Data on the quality of the adaptation procedures and clinimetric testing were extracted using current guidelines.

RESULTS:

Forty-four different versions of the MPQ were identified representing 26 different languages/cultures. Regardless of the method of cross-cultural adaptation, clinimetric testing of the adapted questionnaires was generally poorly performed and for 18 versions no clinimetric testing has been undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS:

Although the MPQ has been adapted into a large number of languages, because of inadequate testing most of the adaptations have unknown clinimetric properties. This situation means that users should be cautious when interpreting scores from adapted questionnaires.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk