Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 633

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

Brown, Gregory K., Nicassio, Perry M.·1987·Pain
DOI 10.1016/0304-3959(87)90006-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(87)90006-6

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Brown, G. K., & Nicassio, P. M.
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1987-10
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
53-64
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0304-3959(87)90006-6
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

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.