A pain vocabulary in finnish — The finnish pain questionnaire

Abstract

Words related to pain were collected by asking 59 students and 18 patients to create a list by free association. Each subject was then given a dictionary-derived Finnish version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) with the words arranged in alphabetical order and was asked to place his own words among the dictionary-derive words which appeared most appropriate. Simultaneously, each word was allocated on a visual analogue scale (VAS) in order of increasing intensity. A vocabulary using the MPQ groups was then collated using the words for which at least one-half of the subjects agreed as to classification. The words in each group were presented in alphabetical order. The list was then given to 76 university students whose job was to decide if in fact each word did belong to the class assigned. Following this, the words were arranged on a VAS scale in intensity order. The words mm-mean differences were then compared using a t-test. Those words were chosen for the pain vocabulary which reflected a statistically significant intensity change and were most often to be found in the word-list. The same method is applicable irrespective of language. Words are replaceable by numerical values so that follow-up and renewed investigations become statistically comparable.

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

“…0 ? 0 0 0 Finnish [11] 0 0 0 0 0 0 French [13] 0 0 0 0 0 0 German [57] 0 0 0 0 0 0 German [65] 0 0 0 0 0 0 German (Berne) [15] 0 0 0 0 ? 0 German [35] 0 0 þ 0 þ 0 Greek [32] ?…”

“…The process used to develop these new versions of the MPQ has not been uniform. Some authors have used a cross-cultural adaptation approach [8] (e.g., the Turkish [9] and Korean [10] SF-MPQ), others have constructed a new questionnaire following similar methodological procedures to those used in the development of the original MPQ (e.g., the Finnish Pain Questionnaire [11] and the Italian Pain Questionnaire [12]) and some versions [13e15] have used a ''mix'' of the two procedures described above. Regardless of the approach used, the main objective of the cross-cultural adaptation is to develop equivalent versions of the MPQ that enable clinicians and researchers to assess…”

Patients’ and nurses’ assessment of cancer pain

“…The FPQ consists of 56 terms describing pain, divided into 16 categories. Twelve of these categories describe sensory experiences of pain, three affective and one evaluative experiences (Ketovuori & Po È ntinen 1981). The FPQ has been tested by assessing pain intensity in chronic and acute pain together with WAS.…”

The development and validation of a Greek version of the short‐form McGill Pain Questionnaire

“…It is acknowledged that among the difficulties encountered during the translation procedure of an instrument the hardest to solve is the appropriate selection of the synonym for the English world (Diller, 1980). This unsolvable and sometimes semantic problem has been addressed by some researchers by using the same conceptual framework as the original questionnaire in order to develop an instrument which retains the idiomatic language properties of the people for whom it is intended (Strand and Wisnes, 1991;Ketovuori and Pontinen, 1981). However, in such cases it remains difficult to directly compare the two instruments since they are dissimilar.…”