Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the graded chronic pain scale in patients with chronic low back pain

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Turkish version of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised (GCPS-R) and to evaluate its reliability and validity.

Methods

The prospective and cross-sectional study was performed with 102 low back pain patients (67 women, 35 men). Patients were asked to complete the GCPS-R twice, one week apart. Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) were filled only in the first evaluation. Test–retest reliability was analyzed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's α. The minimal detectable change (MDC95) was calculated based on the standard error of measurement (SEM95). The construct validity was analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Exploratory factor analysis was calculated to explore the factor structure of GCPS-R.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 45.2 ± 13.1 years. The internal consistency was acceptable, and test–retest reliability was excellent (α = 0.933, ICC = 0.972). SEM95 and MDC95 for the total score were 2.07 and 5.73, respectively. VAS measured for both rest and activity were strongly correlated with GCPS-R (r > 0.50). The correlation between the total score of GCPS-R and RMDQ was excellent (r = 0.677, p < 0.001). SF-36's; physical function, role physical, bodily pain and social function subscores were strongly correlated with GCPS-R (r > 0.50). There was moderate correlation between GCPS-R and the physical activity subscore of the FABQ (r = 0.494, p < 0.001). GCPS-R had a single factor structure as expected.

Conclusion

The Turkish version of GCPS-R is a valid and reliable questionnaire in patients with chronic low back pain.

Level of Evidence

II (Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Krismer M, Van Tulder M (2007) Low back pain (non-specific). Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 21(1):77–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Van Hecke O, Torrance N, Smith BH (2013) Chronic pain epidemiology and its clinical relevance. Br J Anaesth 111(1):13–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D (2006) Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain 10(4):287–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R (2017) Non-specific low back pain. The Lancet 389(10070):736–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stilwell P, Harman K (2019) An enactive approach to pain: beyond the biopsychosocial model. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 18(4):637–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Franchignoni F, Salaffi F (2004) Generic and specific measures for outcome assessment in orthopaedic and rheumatologic rehabilitation. Assess Phys Med Rehabil-Adv Rehabil 16:45–77

    Google Scholar 

  7. Von Korff M, Dworkin SF, Le Resche L (1990) Graded chronic pain status: an epidemiologic evaluation. Pain 40(3):279–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Von Korff M, DeBar LL, Krebs EE, Kerns RD, Deyo RA, Keefe FJ (2020) Graded chronic pain scale revised: mild, bothersome, and high-impact chronic pain. Pain 161(3):651–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dahlhamer J, Lucas J, Zelaya C, Nahin R, Mackey S, DeBar L, Kerns R, Von Korff M, Porter L, Helmick C (2018) Prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain among adults—United States, 2016. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 67(36):1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dixon D, Pollard B, Johnston M (2007) What does the chronic pain grade questionnaire measure? Pain 130(3):249–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferrer-Peña R, Gil-Martínez A, Pardo-Montero J, Jiménez-Penick V, Gallego-Izquierdo T, La Touche R (2016) Adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the graded chronic pain scale. Reumatología Clínica (English Edition) 12(3):130–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Klasen BW, Hallner D, Schaub C, Willburger R, Hasenbring M (2004) Validation and reliability of the German version of the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire in primary care back pain patients. GMS Psycho-Social Medicine 1

  13. Bracher ESB, Pietrobon R, Eluf-Neto J (2010) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of a Brazilian Portuguese version of the chronic pain grade. Qual Life Res 19(6):847–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Papaioannou M, Diakomi M, Georgoudis G, Argyra E, Vadalouca A, Siafaka I (2018) The chronic pain grade questionnaire: validity, reliability and responsiveness in Greek chronic hip pain sufferers. Hippokratia 22(1):37

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Soleymani A, Arani AM, Raeissadat SA, Davazdahemamy MH (2019) Validity and reliability of the persian version of the chronic pain grade questionnaire in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Adv Nurs Midwifery 28(3):35–39

    Google Scholar 

  16. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Grassi W (2006) Reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Clin Rheumatol 25(5):619–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tanti I, Wira VVW, Pragustine Y, Himawan LS, Ariani N (2020) Validation of the Indonesian version of the graded chronic pain scale in pain-related temporomandibular disorders. Med J Indones 29(1):42–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chung JW, Kim JH, Kim HD, Kho HS, Kim YK, Chung SC (2004) Chronic orofacial pain among Korean elders: prevalence, and impact using the graded chronic pain scale. Pain 112(1–2):164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46(12):1417–1432

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Keller A, Hayden J, Bombardier C, Van Tulder M (2007) Effect sizes of non-surgical treatments of non-specific low-back pain. Eur Spine J 16(11):1776–1788

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M (2011) Measures of adult pain: Visual analog scale for pain (vas pain), numeric rating scale for pain (nrs pain), mcgill pain questionnaire (mpq), short-form mcgill pain questionnaire (sf-mpq), chronic pain grade scale (cpgs), short form-36 bodily pain scale (sf-36 bps), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (icoap). Arthr Care Res 63(S11):S240–S252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, Niyazoglu H (2001) Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine 26(24):2738–2743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Korkmaz N, Akinci A, Yörükan S, Sürücü HS, Saraçbaşi O, Ozçakar L (2009) Validation and reliability of the Turkish version of the fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire in patients with low back pain. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 45(4):527

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, Ölmez N, Memiş AK (1999) Form-36 (KF-36)’nın Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. Ilaç ve tedavi dergisi 12(2):102–106

    Google Scholar 

  26. Baumgartner TA, Chung H (2001) Confidence limits for intraclass reliability coefficients. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 5(3):179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Pearson/Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  28. Juniper EF (1996) How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. Quality of life and pharamacoeconomics in clinical trials: 49–56

  29. Haefeli M, Elfering A (2006) Pain assessment. Eu r Spine J 15(1):S17–S24

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Köyceğiz Vocational School of Health Services, Elderly Care Department, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Turkey

    Fatih Özden

  2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey

    Mehmet Özkeskin & Serkan Bakırhan

  3. Physical Therapy Unit, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Training and Research Hospital, Muğla, Turkey

    Özgür Nadiye Karaman

  4. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Turkey

    Hüseyin Aydoğmuş

Authors
  1. Fatih Özden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Özkeskin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Serkan Bakırhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Özgür Nadiye Karaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hüseyin Aydoğmuş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatih Özden.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest and certify that no funding has been received for this study and/or preparation of this manuscript.

Ethical approval

The permission for the translation for the Turkish version of GCPS-R was acquired from the developer of the original questionnaire. The study was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles and the Helsinki Declaration. Informed consents of the patients were obtained. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Ege University (No: 20-7 T/69).

Consent to participate

Informed consent of the patients was obtained.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 86 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Özden, F., Özkeskin, M., Bakırhan, S. et al. The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the graded chronic pain scale in patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 30, 2955–2961 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06910-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06910-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation