CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 881Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale

Osman, Augustine, Barrios, Francisco X., Kopper, Beverly A., Hauptmann, Wendy, Jones, Jewel, O'Neill, Elizabeth·1997·Journal of Behavioral Medicine
DOI 10.1023/a:1025570508954
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS; Sullivan et al., Psychol. Assess. 7, 524-532, 1995) has recently been developed to assess three components of catastrophizing: rumination, magnification, and helplessness. We conducted three studies to evaluate the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the PCS. In Study I, we conducted principal-components analysis with oblique rotation to replicate the three factors of the PCS. Gender differences on the original PCS subscales were also analyzed. In Study II, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the adequacy of fit of four alternative models. We also evaluated evidence for concurrent and discriminant validity. In Study III, we evaluated the ability of the PCS and subscales to differentiate between the responses of clinic (students seeking treatment) and nonclinic undergraduate samples. Also, in the clinic sample, we evaluated evidence of concurrent and predictive validity for the PCS. The internal consistency reliability indices for the total PCS and subscales were examined in all three studies. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1025570508954

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bentler, P. M. (1996). EQS Structural Equations Program Version 5.4, Multivariate Software, Encino.
  2. Kline, P. (1986). A Handbook of Test Construction, Methuen, London.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 881

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Osman, A., Barrios, F. X., Kopper, B. A., Hauptmann, W., Jones, J., & O'Neill, E.
Affiliations
University of Northern Iowa (US)
ORCID
Osman, Augustine
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1997-12
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
589-605
ISSN
  • 0160-7715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3521
DOI
10.1023/a:1025570508954
OpenAlex
W1604676280
Cited by
881
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 21
FWCI
0.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNI ScholarWorks (University of Northern Iowa) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Pain Catastrophizing Scale, pain catastrophizing, rumination, magnification, helplessness, factor structure, psychometric validation, gender differences, predictive validity, internal consistency
MeSH terms
Adult, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Pain, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Regression Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies

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