The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pain sensitivity can be assessed by self-rating: Development and validation of the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire
Abstract
Experimental determination of pain sensitivity has received increasing attention because of emerging clinical applications (including prediction of postoperative pain and treatment response) and scientific implications (e.g. it has been proposed that above-average pain sensitivity is a risk factor for the development of chronic pain disorders). However, the use of experimental pain sensitivity assessment on a broad scale is hampered by its requirements on time, equipment and human resources and the fact that it is painful for the tested subject. Alternatives to experimental pain testing are currently lacking. Here we developed a self-rating instrument for the assessment of pain sensitivity, the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) that is based on pain intensity ratings of daily life situations and takes 5-10min to complete. Adequate reliability of the PSQ was confirmed in 354 subjects. In a validation study comprising 47 healthy subjects, the results of comprehensive experimental pain testing, including different modalities (heat, cold, pressure, and pinprick) and different measures (pain thresholds, pain intensity ratings), were compared to the results of the PSQ. PSQ scores were significantly correlated to experimental pain intensity ratings (r = 0.56, p < 0.001) but not to pain thresholds (r = 0.03). Prediction of experimental pain intensity ratings by the PSQ was better than by pain-associated psychological factors (pain catastrophizing, depression, anxiety). This shows that the PSQ may be a simple alternative to experimental pain intensity rating procedures in healthy subjects and makes the PSQ a highly promising tool for clinical and experimental pain research.
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
An inventory for measuring depression
BECK, A. T. (1961) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 · Cited by 38,032
(1970) · Cited by 24,983
The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation.
Sullivan, M. J. L., Bishop, S. R., & Pivik, J. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.7.4.524 · Cited by 8,227
Rolke, R., Baron, R., Maier, C., Tölle, T. R., Treede, D. R., Beyer, A., Binder, A., Birbaumer, N., Birklein, F., Bötefür, I. C., et al. (2006) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.01.041 · Cited by 2,609
Berkley, K. J. (1997) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x97221485 · Cited by 1,125
Sex differences in the perception of noxious experimental stimuli: a meta-analysis
Riley, J. L., Robinson, M. E., Wise, E. A., Myers, C. D., & Fillingim, R. B. (1998) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00199-1 · Cited by 1,085
Psychological aspects of persistent pain: Current state of the science
Keefe, F. J., Rumble, M. E., Scipio, C. D., Giordano, L. A., & Perri, L. M. (2004) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2004.02.576 · Cited by 954 · cited 1×
“Prediction of experimental pain sensitivity by the PSQ was compared to that by psychological factors known to contribute to pain experience (depression, anxiety, pain catastrophizing) [30].”
MethodEvidence of augmented central pain processing in idiopathic chronic low back pain
Giesecke, T., Gracely, R. H., Grant, M. A. B., Nachemson, A., Petzke, F., Williams, D. A., & Clauw, D. J. (2004) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.20063 · Cited by 817
Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria
Lohr, K. N., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Audrey Burnam, M., Patrick, D. L., Perrin, E. B., & Roberts, J. S. (1996) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/s0149-2918(96)80054-3 · Cited by 591
Characteristics and prediction of early pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Bisgaard, T., Klarskov, B., Rosenberg, J., & Kehlet, H. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00406-1 · Cited by 486
Cited by
Assessment and manifestation of central sensitisation across different chronic pain conditions
Arendt‐Nielsen, L., Morlion, B., Perrot, S., Dahan, A., Dickenson, A., Kress, H. G., Wells, C., Bouhassira, D., & Drewes, A. M. (2018) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1002/ejp.1140 · Cited by 695
Hermesdorf, M., Berger, K., Baune, B. T., Wellmann, J., Ruscheweyh, R., & Wersching, H. (2016) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2016.01.474 · Cited by 140
Acceptance, Cognitive Restructuring, and Distraction as Coping Strategies for Acute Pain
Kohl, A., Rief, W., & Glombiewski, J. A. (2013) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2012.12.005 · Cited by 99
Shen, B., Wu, B., Abdullah, T. B., Zhan, G., Lian, Q., Vania Apkarian, A., & Huang, L. (2018) · Molecular Pain · doi:10.1177/1744806918755283 · Cited by 44
Kubik, S. U., & Martin, P. R. (2017) · Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · doi:10.1111/head.12940 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruscheweyh, R., Marziniak, M., Stumpenhorst, F., Reinholz, J., & Knecht, S.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2009-11
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 65-74
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003327748
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 2.17
- 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: Pain sensitivity can be assessed by self-rating: Development and validation of the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2009.06.020
- The paper
- Ruscheweyh, R., Marziniak, M., Stumpenhorst, F., Reinholz, J., & Knecht, S. (2009). Pain sensitivity can be assessed by self-rating: Development and validation of the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.06.020
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.
