The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development of a questionnaire for the assessment of active and passive coping strategies in chronic pain patients
Abstract
This study describes the development of a self-report questionnaire, the Vanderbilt Pain Management Inventory, which assesses the frequency with which chronic pain patients use active or passive coping strategies when their pain reaches a moderate or greater level of intensity. Two internally reliable scales, Active Coping and Passive Coping, were derived using factor analytic techniques from a sample of 361 rheumatoid arthritis patients. The 2 scales showed an opposite pattern of relationships with criterion measures. While Active Coping was associated with reports of less pain, less depression, less functional impairment, and higher general self-efficacy, Passive Coping was correlated with reports of greater depression, greater pain and flare-up activity, greater functional impairment, and lower general self-efficacy. The relationship of these scales to previous theory and research on coping is presented. These scales appear useful for the assessment of coping strategies in clinical settings and in treatment outcome research on chronic pain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population
Radloff, L. S. (1977) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 · Cited by 53,267
“Stress: appraisal and coping,”
Folkman, S. (2013) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215 · Cited by 27,833
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2136319 · Cited by 7,791
Development of the multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) scales
Wallston, K. A., Strudler Wallston, B., & DeVellis, R. (1978) · Health Education Monographs · doi:10.1177/109019817800600107 · Cited by 3,373
Rosenstiel, A. K., & Keefe, F. J. (1983) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90125-2 · Cited by 2,314
Cited by
The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.3200/jrlp.139.5.439-457 · Cited by 1,878
The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: Taking pain into account
Nicholas, M. K. (2007) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.008 · Cited by 1,656
Self-Management: A Comprehensive Approach to Management of Chronic Conditions
Grady, P. A., & Gough, L. L. (2014) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302041 · Cited by 923
Coping with chronic pain: a critical review of the literature
Jensen, M. P., Turner, J. A., Romano, J. M., & Karoly, P. (1991) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(91)90216-k · Cited by 835
Coping with rheumatoid arthritis pain: catastrophizing as a maladaptive strategy
Keefe, F. J., Brown, G. K., Wallston, K. A., & Caldwell, D. S. (1989) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(89)90152-8 · Cited by 694
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, G. K., & Nicassio, P. M.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1987-10
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-64
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2151567248
- Cited by
- 633
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 5.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development of a questionnaire for the assessment of active and passive coping strategies in chronic pain patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(87)90006-6
- The paper
- Brown, G. K., & Nicassio, P. M. (1987). Development of a questionnaire for the assessment of active and passive coping strategies in chronic pain patients. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(87)90006-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.