IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0178268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire concerning pain management in Chinese orthopedic patients

Author

Listed:
  • Huan Fang
  • Jingjuan Liang
  • Zhen Hong
  • Kenji Sugiyama
  • Takao Nozaki
  • Susumu Kobayashi
  • Tetsuro Sameshima
  • Hiroki Namba
  • Tetsuya Asakawa

Abstract

The present study tested the clinical efficiency (item grouping, internal consistency of the subscales, construct validity, and clinical feasibility) of a widely used pain assessment system, the Mandarin version of the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R-C), in Chinese patients. We also attempted to investigate the current quality of pain management provided in orthopedic inpatient units in China and provide baseline data. First, we investigated the test–retest reliability of APS-POQ-R-C. In total, 236 orthopedic patients were evaluated. Our results showed that APS-POQ-R-C has satisfactory internal consistency and construct validity, although some items are not appropriate for orthopedic patients. Test–retest reliability outcomes indicated that APS-POQ-R-C is a satisfactory battery with acceptable validity and reliability, and is therefore recommended for pain management in future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Huan Fang & Jingjuan Liang & Zhen Hong & Kenji Sugiyama & Takao Nozaki & Susumu Kobayashi & Tetsuro Sameshima & Hiroki Namba & Tetsuya Asakawa, 2017. "Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire concerning pain management in Chinese orthopedic patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0178268
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178268
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178268&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0178268?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0178268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.