Validation of a modified McGill Pain Questionnaire for orthodontic patients

Abstract

Objective: To assess better and more efficiently the aspects of pain experienced by adolescent orthodontic patients, the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (MPQ-SF) was modified (MMPQ-SF) and validated. Materials and Methods: Internal and external expert panels developed a MMPQ-SF with 15 descriptors and 4-point Likert severity scales (MMPQ-SF15). Seventy-five subjects undergoing orthodontic treatment gave informed consent. Sixty-one subjects completed the MMPQ-SF15, a visual analogue scale (VAS), and the present pain index (PPI) 24 hours after an orthodontic visit. Respondents were grouped by gender and treatment stage: initial (15 female, 7 male), middle (10 female, 7 male), and end (16 female, 6 male). MMPQ-SF, VAS, and PPI scores were compared by Spearman correlation analysis. Underlying constructs were explored by factor analyses. Construct validity of the MMPQ-SF was tested by analysis of variance. Results: MMPQ-SF15 and VAS (r 5 0.78, r 2 s 5 0.61, P , .0001), MMPQ-SF15 and PPI (r 5 0.84, r 2 s 5 0.71, P , .0001), and VAS and PPI (r 5 0.70, r 2 s 5 0.48, P , .0001) were correlated positively and significantly. A two-factor solution (localized and generalized/emotional pain; KaiserMeyer-Olkin 5 0.88) showed that 11 descriptors (MMPQ-SF11) accounted for 64% of response variability. Generalized/emotional pain values were significantly higher during the initial stage of treatment compared to the middle (P 5 .011) and end stages (P 5 .014). Conclusions: MMPQ-SF, particularly MMPQ-SF11, demonstrated utility in assessment of localized and generalized/emotional aspects of pain in adolescent orthodontic patients and correlated well with VAS and PPI. Future application of the MMPQ-SF11 to measure orthodontic pain more specifically could lead to more appropriate management of this important facet of therapy. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:906-912.)

Validating the factor structure and testing measurement invariance of modified Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (Ortho-SF-MPQ) for orthodontic pain assessment

“…The findings of this study confirm the two factor structure of Ortho-SF-MPQ, as proposed by Iwasaki et al (Iwasaki et al, 2013). Hence, two dimensions (sensory and affective) model of the Ortho-SF-MPQ seems to be the most appropriate and informative in assessing orthodontic pain in both male and female adolescent populations.…”

“…The good to excellent estimate of internal consistency for both sensory and affective dimensions are in agreement with previous study's findings (Iwasaki et al, 2013). However, unlike earlier study which used Cronbach's alpha to estimate the internal consistency, the omega coefficient used in this study is preferred as it outperforms the conventional Cronbach's alpha (Brown, 2015), especially for multidimensional scale, as is the Ortho-SF-MPQ.…”

“…However, since both of these two additional components of Ortho-SF-MPQ have already been validated and collaborated in relation to the orthodontic pain (Iwasaki et al, 2013), the focus of this current study was to analyze the factor structure and MI of Ortho-SF-MPQ. Therefore, the PPI and VAS scores would be presented only as summary statistics.…”

“…The objectives of this study were to validate the proposed two factor structure of the recently modified Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire used for orthodontic pain assessment (Ortho-SF-MPQ) in adolescents (Iwasaki et al, 2013); and to evaluate the MI between male and female groups at three pre-specified time periods i.e. T1 (24 hours), T2 (day 3), and T3 (day 7) after initial arch wire placement.…”

Three questionnaires to assess the perception of fixed orthodontic therapy before, during and after treatment: validity and reliability

“…psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics), (29) or the impact of pain during treatment on quality of life. (30) Moreover, previously published valid and reliable questionnaires have limitations, for example some of these questionnaires are age specific (28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36). Other limitations are related to the aims of existing questionnaires developed for cross-sectional use to measure either motivation, expectations, experiences, or satisfaction (28-37).…”