Cited by 339Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationPain Management and Opioid Use

The Pain Disability Index: Factor structure and normative data

Chibnall, John T., Tait, Raymond C.·1994·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

The factor structure and normative data for the Pain Disability Index (PDI) were examined in a large (N = 1,059) sample of chronic pain patients. The results support a one-factor solution for the PDI. Analyses of normative data indicated very small effects associated with gender, age, and pain duration. Relatively larger effects were associated with compensation status, litigation status, and circumstances of pain onset. Working patients reported less disability than their nonworking counterparts, litigating patients reported more disability than nonlitigants, and patients injured at work reported higher levels of disability than those with pain origins unrelated to work. The results reflect the disability level of patients referred to a hospital-based pain management program and may be useful as a reference point when comparing disability levels of other patient groups or research samples.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90082-5

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Pain Disability Index (PDI) is a 7-item self-report instrument based on a 10-point scale that assesses perception of the specific impact of pain on disability that may preclude normal or desired performance of a wide range of functions.

    “The Pain Disability Index (PDI) is a 7-item self-report instrument based on a 10-point scale that assesses perception of the specific impact of pain on disability that may preclude normal or desired performance of a wide range of functions, such as family and social activities, sex, work, life-support (sleeping, breathing, eating), and daily living activities.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chibnall, J. T., & Tait, R. C.
Affiliations
Saint Louis University (US)
Corresponding author
Chibnall, John T.
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-10
Volume
75
Issue
10
Pages
1082-1086
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036517511
Cited by
338
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 15
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
Pain Disability Index, chronic pain, disability, factor structure, reference values, litigation, occupational injuries, pain onset, pain management program, working patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Demography, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Jurisprudence, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Workers' Compensation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review