Skip to main content

Table 1 A priori hypotheses for evaluating the psychometric properties of the Hausa Pain Catastrophizing Scale

From: 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

Psychometric properties Hypotheses
Floor and ceiling effects
 1. Ceiling effects 15% of the respondents having the maximum score (52) [58]
 2. Floor effects 15% of the respondents having the minimum score (0) [58]
Reliability
 1. Internal consistency Cronbach’s α = 0.70–0.95 [58]
 2. Test–retest reliability Intraclass correlation coefficient =  ≥ 0.70 [58]
 3. Standard error of measurement 1.6–4.6 [31, 35, 37, 39, 67, 68]
 4. Minimal detectable change 4.0–13.0 [31, 35,36,37, 39, 67, 68]
 5. 95% limits of agreement − 15.1 to + 16.0 [39, 40, 67, 68]
Construct validity
 1. PCS versus FABQ-total, FABQ-physical and FABQ-work Significant moderate to strong positive correlation (rho; 0.34–0.61) [35, 39, 44]
 2. PCS versus VAS-pain Significant moderate to strong positive correlation (rho; 0.31–0.64) [36, 37, 39, 67]
 3. PCS versus ODI Significant moderate to strong positive correlation (rho; ≥ 0.30) [67]
 4. PCS versus MCS-12 Significant moderate to strong negative correlation with (rho; ≥ − 0.30) [38]
  1. PCS Pain Catastrophizing Scale, FABQ Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, VAS-pain Visual Analogue Scale for pain, ODI Oswestry Disability Index; rho Spearman’s correlation coefficient