Reasons for performing study: The Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI) is a caregiver-reported questionnaire designed to assess pain severity and the impact of pain on activities, such as functional movements, in canine osteoarthritis (OA). The English version of CBPI has displayed satisfactory psychometric properties, in canine OA. To be used in another language the CBPI has to be properly translated and tested.

Objectives: To report some psychometric properties of a translated version of the CBPI (CBPI-S), in a group of dogs diagnosed with OA.

Study design: Observational, cross-sectional.

Methods: Twenty-one caregivers of clinically sound dogs and 61 caregivers of dogs with OA were prospectively included in this study. After being translated, according to recommendations for patient-reported outcome measures, the CBPI-S was completed by the caregivers. Construct validity (the ability to measure what it is supposed to measure) was assessed by repeating the principal component analysis and by assessing for differences between sound dogs and dogs with OA using Mann–Whitney U test. Internal consistency (the correlation among items) was estimated by Cronbach's α.

Results: Principal component analysis showed a two-component structure (pain severity and impact of pain). Two components accounted for 76 · 8% of the total variance, suggesting an acceptable fit of a two-component structure. Inter-item correlations were good (overall > 0 · 39) and mean inter-item correlation was 0 · 79 for severity items and 0 · 62 for impact items. Clinically sound dogs differed from OA dogs and showed significantly lower CBPI-S total score. Cronbach's α was 0 · 94 for the total CBPI-S, 0 · 91 for the pain severity and 0 · 91 for the impact of pain.

Conclusion: Our results supplement the knowledge with the CBPI by verifying the easy to use utility. Also, by repeating satisfying construct validity and high internal consistency of CBPI-S our results indicate that the translated version seems valid for use in another language.

Ethical animal research: The study was approved by the Local Animal Ethics Committee in Uppsala. Informed client consent was obtained for all animals used in the study.

Sources of funding: This study was funded by Evidensia Djursjukvård, Svelands Stiftelse, Jan Skogsborgs Stiftelse and Agria & Svenska Kennelklubbens Forskningsfond.