A MULTICENTER EVALUATION OF THE MCGILL PAIN QUESTIONNAIRE - RESULTS FROM MORE THAN 1700 CHRONIC PAIN PATIENTS
A MULTICENTER EVALUATION OF THE MCGILL PAIN QUESTIONNAIRE - RESULTS FROM MORE THAN 1700 CHRONIC PAIN PATIENTS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0304-3959(92)90077-o
复制
发表时间：
1992-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
OMALLEY, WB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
HOLROYD, KA;HOLM, JE;OMALLEY, WB
我们认为，在以前的研究中，麦吉尔疼痛问卷疼痛评分指数（PRI）的因素结构的矛盾的结果报告可以解释的患者样本和统计分析的差异，跨研究。为了澄清PRI的因素结构，使用验证性因素分析在2个腰痛患者样本（N = 1372）和第三个患有其他慢性疼痛问题的患者样本（N = 423）中比较了3个不同的因素模型。一个4因素模型，类似于在以前的研究中获得的多个标准被用来确定提取的因素的数量，最好地解释了PRI亚类之间的协变。然而，相对较高的因素间的相关性（约三分之二的方差解释的最佳拟合因子结构是共同的方差）质疑的判别有效性的PRI分量表，检查PRI和MMPI分量表之间的关系也未能提供证据的判别有效性或临床效用的PRI分量表。将10个PRI感觉亚类的信息减少到单个子量表评分可能会严重限制PRI的有用性。建议使用PRI数据的替代方法。
We argue that the conflicting results reported in previous studies examining the factor structure of the McGill Pain Questionnaire Pain Rating Index (PRI) can be explained by differences in the patient samples and statistical analyses used across studies. In an effort to clarify the factor structure of the PRI, 3 different factor models were compared using confirmatory factor analysis in 2 samples of low-back pain patients (N = 1372) and in a third sample of patients suffering from other chronic pain problems (N = 423). A 4-factor model, similar to those obtained in previous studies where multiple criteria were used to determine the number of factors extracted, best explained covariation among PRI subclasses. However, relatively high interfactor correlations (approximately two-thirds of the variance explained by the best fitting factor structure was common variance) cast doubt on the discriminant validity of PRI subscales; examination of relationships between the PRI and MMPI subscales also failed to provide evidence of the discriminant validity or clinical utility of PRI subscales. Reducing the information from the 10 PRI sensory subclasses to a single subscale score may seriously limit the usefulness of the PRI. Alternate methods of using PRI data are suggested.