ArticleThe Clinical journal of pain2026
Clinimetric Evaluation of the English Version of the Conceptualization of Pain Questionnaire (COPAQ).
Article in The Clinical journal of pain, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVery few validated instruments measure a child's concept of pain. The Conceptualization of Pain Questionnaire (COPAQ) is a unidimensional instrument measuring this construct, developed in Catalan and translated into English. The clinimetric properties of the English version have not been evaluated. We conducted a Rasch analysis to evaluate its structural validity and internal consistency, and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to evaluate its structural validity.
methodsWe analyzed an existing data set from a previous study. Item fit was evaluated using INFIT and OUTFIT statistics, item difficulty was estimated using Rasch coefficients, and internal consistency using Cronbach alpha. Structural validity was measured using item loadings from the CFA.
resultsWe included data from 497 adolescents (average age 14 y [SD 1.28], 51% male). There was a wide range of difficulty across items. One item demonstrated excessive positive outfit, and 2 items were close to the cutoff for excessive negative outfit. The COPAQ demonstrated poor overall fit to the unidimensional Rasch Model and did not demonstrate adequate internal consistency (Cronbach alpha=0.6). Results from the CFA suggest the items do not measure the single construct they intend to measure. DISCUSSION: The English version of the COPAQ did not have adequate internal consistency or structural validity. More work is required to assess the content validity of current instruments measuring a child's concept of pain. Developing validated instruments measuring a child's concept of pain aligned with the biopsychosocial model should be prioritized.
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.