Background Evaluating the impact of migraine on cognition is vital in both clinical and research contexts. However, no validated Arabic-language tool currently exists for this purpose. This study aimed to translate and validate an Arabic adaptation of the Migraine Attacks–Subjective Cognitive Impairments ( Mig-SCog) scale to enable accurate, culturally appropriate assessment of subjective cognitive symptoms in Arabic-speaking individuals with migraine. Methods Patients with episodic and chronic migraine underwent structured, face-to-face interviews that included assessments of headache characteristics and severity using the Arabic versions of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Cognitive function was evaluated during headache-free periods using the Arabic versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mig-SCog questionnaire (Arabic version). Reliability of the Mig-SCog was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was examined through convergent correlations and exploratory factor analysis. Results A total of 90 patients (55 with episodic migraine and 35 with chronic migraine) were assessed using the Arabic Mig-SCog, with a median score of 13 (range: 12–15). The questionnaire demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.82) and demonstrated good clarity and usability. Construct validity was supported by a moderate positive correlation with HIT-6 scores ( r = 0.590, p < . 001), a moderate negative correlation with MoCA scores ( r = –0.567, p < . 001), and a fair positive correlation with monthly migraine days ( r = 0.343, p = . 001). Conclusion The Arabic Mig-SCog demonstrated good internal consistency and acceptable construct validity in Arabic-speaking individuals with migraine. Its correlations with HIT-6, MoCA, and monthly migraine days support its utility as a screening tool for migraine-related cognitive complaints. Further research is recommended to evaluate its performance across different migraine phases and in larger, more diverse populations before widespread clinical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nada et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: