ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Danish version of the neurophysiology of pain questionnaire.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite advances in medicine and technology, pain remains a significant global burden. Improving pain education for undergraduate healthcare students is considered an important step toward enhancing pain management. The Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) is commonly used to assess pain knowledge in healthcare students, but its validity and reliability in this population remain uncertain. This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the NPQ for Danish-speaking healthcare students and evaluate its measurement properties in Danish physiotherapy, medicine, and odontology students.
methodsThe study was conducted in two phases: (1) translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the NPQ following international guidelines, and (2) a cross-sectional study to evaluate its validity and reliability in a sample of 224 Danish undergraduate healthcare students. Structural validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, while test-retest reliability was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Measurement error was analyzed using the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC).
resultsFactor analysis revealed 11 factors, each with eigenvalues below 1, suggesting poor structural validity. Factor loadings were below the recommended threshold of 0.50, indicating weak item clustering. Internal consistency was low (Cronbach's alpha = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.47), and test-retest reliability was poor (ICC = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.66). Measurement error analysis showed an SEM of 1.94 (95% CI: 1.54 to 2.63) and an MDC of 5.38 (95% CI: 4.27 to 7.28). No floor or ceiling effects were observed.
conclusionsThe Danish version of the NPQ demonstrated poor structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability in undergraduate healthcare students. These findings raise concerns about its suitability for assessing pain neurophysiology knowledge in this population. Alternative tools or modifications to the NPQ may be necessary to improve its measurement properties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.