ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the University of Washington pain-related self-efficacy scale in patients with chronic low back and neck 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
backgroundThe University of Washington Pain-Related Self-Efficacy Scale (UW-PRSES) assesses pain-related self-efficacy but has not yet been adapted for Turkish-speaking populations. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the UW-PRSES into Turkish and to evaluate its psychometric properties, including reliability and construct validity.
methodsA total of 154 patients with chronic low back or neck pain completed the Turkish versions of the UW-PRSES (T-UW-PRSES), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and EuroQoL 5-Dimension 3-Level (EQ-5D-3 L). Test–retest reliability was assessed in 35 participants after one week. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s α for the total scale, and test–retest reliability was evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, two-way random-effects, absolute agreement). We hypothesized that higher T-UW-PRSES scores were expected to correlate negatively with pain intensity and fear-avoidance beliefs, and positively with health-related quality of life. The underlying structure of the scale was examined with exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
resultsThe T-UW-PRSES demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87) and good test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.865, 95% CI 0.748–0.929). SEM and SDC were 1.85 and 5.13, respectively, indicating good measurement precision. In line with pre-specified hypotheses, T-UW-PRSES scores correlated negatively with VAS at rest (r = − 0.359, p < 0.01) and VAS during activity (r = − 0.279, p < 0.01), and positively correlated with EQ-5D-3 L VAS (r = 0.246, p < 0.01). Correlations with FABQ (r = − 0.038, p = 0.61) and EQ-5D-3 L index (r = 0.139, p = 0.08) were non-significant. EFA supported a single-factor structure explaining 61.2% of the variance.
conclusionThe T-UW-PRSES demonstrates satisfactory reliability. In addition, the T-UW-PRSES demonstrates construct validity with VAS scores which assess pain and perceived health status for assessing pain-related self-efficacy in individuals with chronic low back and neck pain. Its brevity, ease of administration, and focus on pain-related self-efficacy support its routine use in both clinical and research settings.
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.