Cited by 952Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UsePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Pain Disability Index: psychometric properties

Tait, Raymond C., Chibnall, John T., Krause, Steven·1990·Pain

Abstract

This paper reports two studies of chronic pain patients (n = 444) relevant to the psychometric properties of the Pain Disability Index (PDI), a self-report instrument that has been used to assess the degree to which chronic pain interferes with various daily activities. In the first study, patients with high PDI scores reported more psychological distress (P less than 0.001), more severe pain characteristics (P less than 0.001), and more restriction of activities (P less than 0.001) than patients with low PDI scores, findings supportive of the construct validity of the measure. Further, a multiple regression showed that a linear combination of 9 variables predicted PDI scores (R = 0.74): time spent in bed, psychosomatic symptoms, stopping activities because of pain, work status, pain duration, usual pain intensity, quality of life, pain extent, and education. This study also showed differences for age and gender on disability. The second study involved 46 patients who had undergone inpatient treatment for their pain conditions. The study revealed modest test-retest reliability for the instrument. It also showed the PDI to be associated with the levels of pain behavior exhibited by these patients. The findings of both studies generally support the reliability and validity of the PDI as a brief measure of pain-related disability. Questions regarding its test-retest reliability and lack of association with certain pain behaviors are discussed, as are suggestions for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(90)90068-o

Cites

28 of 28 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tait, R. C., Chibnall, J. T., & Krause, S.
Affiliations
Saint Louis University (US)
Corresponding author
Tait, Raymond C.
Venue
Pain
Published
1990-02
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
171-182
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2020652540
Cited by
952
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 36
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Pain Disability Index, chronic pain, pain-related disability, psychometric properties, construct validity, test-retest reliability, psychological distress, activity limitation, pain behavior, quality of life, psychosomatic symptoms
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement

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