Confirmatory factor analysis validates the brief K-PCS in chronic pain patients, indicating high reliability and validity.
Introduction The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a widely used self-report tool for evaluating pain-related catastrophizing. In response to the need for more efficient diagnostic tools in clinical environments, the PCS has been shortened from 13 to 4 items in developing the brief version. Objectives The objectives of this study were: (1) to examine the factor structure of a Korean-language version of the brief K-PCS and (2) to assess the reliability and validity of the brief K-PCS. Methods A total of 131 patients seeking treatment at a tertiary pain center in Daejeon, Korea, participated. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum-likelihood estimation was performed to evaluate the adequacy of the one-factor model. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and Pearson correlations were calculated to investigate internal consistency and 2-week test-retest stability of the brief K-PCS, respectively. For concurrent validity, Pearson correlations were also calculated to examine the relationships between the brief K-PCS and various outcome measures. Results The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the adequacy of the brief K-PCS’s unifactor structure, indicated by excellent fit indices (CFI = .999, TLI = .996, SRMR = .039). The brief K-PCS exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .83). Test-retest correlations over a 2-week interval was .744 (p < .001), indicating high stability. For concurrent validity, the brief K-PCS showed significant positive correlations with measures of depression, fearful thinking, physical response, avoidance, and pain-related anxiety (p < .001), and significant negative correlations with quality of life measures, including physical, psychological, social relationships, environmental, and general quality of life (p < .001). Conclusions The brief K-PCS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing pain catastrophizing in a Korean patient sample with chronic pain. Disclosure of Interest H. Yang Grant / Research support from: National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government(NRF-2022S1A5A2A03050752), J. M. Park Grant / Research support from: National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2022S1A5A2A03050752), S. B. Cho Grant / Research support from: National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2022S1A5A2A03050752), S. Y. Lee Grant / Research support from: National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2022S1A5A2A03050752), C. Noh Grant / Research support from: National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2022S1A5A2A03050752), C. Roh Grant / Research support from: National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2022S1A5A2A03050752), S. Cho Grant / Research support from: National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2022S1A5A2A03050752)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: