Development of the Hausa version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation in mixed urban and rural patients with chronic low back pain

• Published in: Health and quality of life outcomes 2021-02, Vol.19 (1), p.44-44, Article 44
• Main Authors: Ibrahim, Aminu A, Akindele, Mukadas O, Kaka, Bashir, Mukhtar, Naziru B
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptation; Adult; Back pain; Biomechanics; Catastrophization - diagnosis; Catastrophization - psychology; Chronic low back pain; Chronic pain; Chronic Pain - diagnosis; Chronic Pain - psychology; Confidence intervals; Consistency; Construction; Correlation coefficient; Correlation coefficients; Cross-cultural adaptation; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Demographic aspects; Diagnosis; Error analysis; Evaluation; Factor analysis; Factor Analysis, Statistical; Female; Hausa; Humans; Hypotheses; Interpreters; Likert scale; Low back pain; Low Back Pain - psychology; Male; Middle Aged; Native languages; Pain; Pain catastrophizing; Pain catastrophizing scale; Patient outcomes; Patients; Psychometrics - standards; Quality of Life; Quantitative psychology; Questionnaires; Reliability; Reliability analysis; Reproducibility of Results; Rumination; Rural areas; Rural Population - statistics & numerical data; Standard error; Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & numerical data; Translations; Translations and translating; Urban areas; Urban Population - statistics & numerical data
• ISSN: 1477-7525; 1477-7525
• DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01644-1

Catastrophizing has been recognized as an important contributor to chronicity in individuals with chronic pain syndromes including low back pain (LBP). The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is perhaps the most widely used tool to evaluate the degree of pain catastrophizing. However, its use is limited in Hausa-speaking countries due to the lack of a validated translated version. To translate and cross-culturally adapt the PCS into Hausa (Hausa-PCS), and evaluate its psychometric properties in mixed urban and rural patients with chronic LBP. The PCS was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Hausa in accordance with established guidelines. To evaluate its psychometric properties, a consecutive sample of 200 patients with chronic LBP was recruited from urban and rural Nigerian hospitals. Validity was evaluated by exploring content validity, factorial structure (confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]), construct validity (Spearman's rho for a priori hypotheses) and known-groups validity. Reliability was evaluated by calculating internal consistency (Cronbach's α), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC) and limits of agreement with 95% confidence interval (LOA ). The Hausa-PCS was comprehensible with good content validity. The CFA confirmed a 3-factor structure similar to the original English version. The concurrent validity was supported as 83% (5/6) of the a priori hypotheses were confirmed. Known-groups comparison showed that the questionnaire was unable to differentiate between male and female or urban and rural patients (p > 0.05). Internal consistency and ICC were adequate for the Hausa-PCS total score (α = 0.84; ICC = 0.90) and the subscale helplessness (α = 0.78; ICC = 0.89) but for the subscales rumination (α = 0.69; ICC = 0.68) and magnification (α = 0.41; ICC = 0.43). The LOA for the Hausa-PCS total score was between - 8.10 and + 9.75, with SEM and MDC of 3.47 and 9.62 respectively. The Hausa-PCS was successfully developed and psychometrically adequate in terms of factorial structure, construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability when applied in mixed urban and rural patients with chronic LBP. However, the internal consistency and reliability coefficients (ICC) for the individual subscales are inadequate. Thus, we support the use of the total score when evaluating pain catastrophizing for clinical or research purposes.