Cited by 47Pediatric Pain Management TechniquesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid Use

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pain in Young Adults—III: Relationships of Three Pain-Coping Measures to Pain and Activity Interference

Lester, Naomi, Lefebvre, John C., Keefe, Francis J.·1996·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

The study had two purposes: (a) to examine the relationships among coping strategies measured by the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) (1), the Vanderbilt Pain Management Inventory (VPMI) (2), and the Ways of Coping Inventory (WOC) (3) and identify the higher-order composite factors representing these relationships; and (b) to determine the degree to which individual coping scale scores and composite coping factor scores could explain variability in the pain intensity and pain-related activity interference reported by young adults. Measures of pain coping were collected from 206 young adults using the CSQ, VPMI, and WOC, along with measures of pain intensity, pain location, and the extent to which pain interfered with daily activities. Results indicated considerable variability in the reported frequency of use of pain-coping strategies and in pain intensity, location, and activity interference. Principal components factor analysis identified three higher-order coping factors (Emotional and Other-Directed Coping, Active Cognitive Coping, and Self-Efficacy for Pain Control) that explained 87% of the variance in individual coping scale scores. The degree to which individual scale scores and composite factor scores explained variability in pain intensity and activity interference variables was determined through a series of multiple regression analyses. The results revealed that individual scale scores, particularly the CSQ scales of catastrophizing and praying or hoping, were best able to explain the variance in measures of pain and activity interference. Taken together, these findings provide further support for the importance of coping variables in explaining the experience of pain and adjustment in young adults.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00002508-199612000-00008

Cites

28 of 28 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

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Parker, 1988, J Rheumatol, 15, 1376
  2. Keele, 1949, Lancet, 2, 6

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 47

Metadata

Authors
Lester, N., Lefebvre, J. C., & Keefe, F. J.
Affiliations
University of North Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Keefe, Francis J.
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
1996-12
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
291-300
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2313922025
Cited by
47
References
28
Citations by year
2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
pain coping, young adults, pain intensity, activity interference, coping strategies, catastrophizing, cognitive coping, Coping Strategies Questionnaire
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Pain, Palliative Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care

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