Cited by 265Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPediatric Pain Management TechniquesPain Management and Placebo Effect

Development and validation of a daily pain catastrophizing scale

Open access
Darnall, Beth D., Sturgeon, John A., Cook, Karon F., Taub, Chloe J., Roy, Anuradha, Burns, John W., Sullivan, Michael, Mackey, Sean C.·2017·The Journal of Pain

Abstract

To date, there is no validated measure for pain catastrophizing at the daily level. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is widely used to measure trait pain catastrophizing. We sought to develop and validate a brief, daily version of the PCS for use in daily diary studies to facilitate research on mechanisms of catastrophizing treatment, individual differences in self-regulation, and to reveal the nuanced relationships between catastrophizing, correlates, and pain outcomes. After adapting the PCS for daily use, we evaluated the resulting 14 items using 3 rounds of cognitive interviews with 30 adults with chronic pain. We refined and tested the final daily PCS in 3 independent, prospective, cross-sectional, observational validation studies conducted in a combined total of 519 adults with chronic pain who completed online measures daily for 14 consecutive days. For study 1 (N = 131), exploratory factor analysis revealed adequate fit and-unexpectedly-unidimensionality for item responses to the daily PCS. Study 2 (N = 177) correlations indicated adequate association with related constructs (anger, anxiety, pain intensity, depression). Similarly, results for study 3 (N = 211) revealed expected correlations for daily PCS and measures of daily constructs including physical activity, sleep, energy level, and positive affect. Results from complex/multilevel confirmatory factor analysis confirmed good fit to a unidimensional model. Scores on the daily PCS were statistically comparable with and more parsimonious than the full 14-item version. Next steps include evaluation of score validity in populations with medical diagnoses, greater demographic diversity, and in patients with acute pain.Perspective This article describes the development and validation of a daily PCS. This daily measure may facilitate research that aims to characterize pain mechanisms, individual differences in self-regulation, adaptation, and nuanced relationships between catastrophizing, correlates, and pain outcomes.

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/j.jpain.2017.05.003

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Darnall, B. D., Sturgeon, J. A., Cook, K. F., Taub, C. J., Roy, A., Burns, J. W., Sullivan, M., & Mackey, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Rush University (US)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Darnall, Beth D.
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
18
Issue
9
Pages
1139-1149
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2614350387
Cited by
264
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K24DA029262, K24DA053564, T32DA035165, HHSN271201200728P)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (P01AT006651, R01AT008561)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, chronic pain, scale development, cognitive interviewing, unidimensionality, factor structure, self-regulation, pain mechanisms, pain intensity, sleep, physical activity, positive affect
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Delphi Technique, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Time Factors, Qualitative Research, Multilevel Analysis, Catastrophization, Chronic Pain

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