ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the pain attention and awareness questionnaire for nonspecific musculoskeletal pain.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable and valid assessments of pain vigilance and awareness are crucial for understanding and treating pain within cognitive-behavioral frameworks, such as the fear-Avoidance Model. While the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ) is a widely used tool for this purpose, no culturally adapted and validated version exists for the Turkish-speaking population, creating an instrumental and clinical gap.
objectiveThis study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and comprehensively evaluate the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the PVAQ in a sample of patients with nonspecific musculoskeletal pain.
methodsAn instrumental, cross-sectional study was conducted. The PVAQ was translated and adapted into Turkish according to established guidelines. A sample of 131 patients with low back, neck, or shoulder pain completed the PVAQ-T, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain intensity. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient - ICC). Construct validity was examined via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Criterion validity was evaluated through Pearson correlations with the PCS, TSK, and HADS.
resultsThe PVAQ-T demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.83) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.918). EFA supported a two-factor structure (vigilance and awareness), explaining 62.3% of the variance. CFA indicated that the original 16-item model had a suboptimal fit (CFI = 0.807; GFI = 0.732; SRMR = 0.060; RMSEA = 0.138, and χ²/df = 3.46). Following the removal of items 4 and 12 based on exploratory and item-level findings, some fit indices showed modest improvement (CFI = 0.836; GFI = 0.768; SRMR = 0.006), whereas others remained unchanged or worsened (RMSEA = 0.144; χ²/df = 3.69). The PVAQ-T total score showed moderately to strongly, statistically significant (p < 0.001) correlations with the PCS (r = 0.681), TSK (r = 0.694), HADS-Anxiety (r = 0.491), and HADS-Depression (r = 0.416) scores, supporting its criterion validity.
conclusionWithin a Turkish sample of individuals with nonspecific musculoskeletal pain, the 14-item Turkish version of the PVAQ demonstrates adequate reliability and validity for assessing pain-related attention and awareness. While the two-factor structure was supported at the exploratory level, confirmatory findings suggest that results should be interpreted with caution. The PVAQ-TR may be a useful instrument for research and clinical assessment of pain-related attentional processes, highlighting the importance of cultural adaptation and empirical evaluation of psychometric instruments.
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.