ArticlePain and therapy2025
Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Version of the Functional Disability Inventory.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When distress meets disability: social connectedness buffers functional impairment in university students.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionChronic pain is a major public health issue affecting approximately one-fifth of children and adolescents worldwide, and it is also a common complaint among Chinese adolescents. Despite its impact on daily functioning in this population, culturally adapted tools for assessing pain-related disability are lacking. The Functional Disability Inventory (FDI) is a widely used measure for evaluating functional impairment, but its simplified Chinese version has yet to be validated. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the FDI into simplified Chinese to assess its reliability and validity in measuring pain-related functional disability among Chinese adolescents.
methodsFirst, the FDI was translated into simplified Chinese according to international guidelines. Subsequently, 1569 adolescents (aged 10-18) completed six scales: FDI, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), the Children's Somatization Inventory (CSI), and the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale (WBS). After that, psychometric properties were evaluated, including internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient and Pearson correlation coefficient), convergent validity (correlations with the other scales). In addition, the sample of 224 pediatric patients with functional abdominal pain (aged 8-18) was drawn to analyze the clinical validity by performing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsThe Chinese FDI demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = 0.86; ω = 0.86) and acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.63; Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.64). Convergent validity was supported by significantly moderate correlations with all the other scales, coefficients ranging from r = 0.30 to r = 0.50 (p < 0.01). ROC analysis revealed excellent clinical validity, with an optimal cutoff score of ≥ 15 [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.90, sensitivity = 0.78, specificity = 0.92] for distinguishing adolescents with chronic pain from healthy peers.
conclusionsThe simplified Chinese FDI is a reliable and valid tool for assessing pain-related functional disability in Chinese adolescents. Its psychometric properties align with global versions while accounting for cultural differences, making it suitable for clinical and research use.
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.