Cited by 38Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPain Management and Opioid Use

Creation and validation of the 4-item BriefPCS-chronic through methodological triangulation.

Open access
Walton, David M., Mehta, Swati, Seo, Wonjin, MacDermid, Joy C.·2020·Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a widely used self-report tool to evaluate pain related catastrophizing. The PCS was developed using classical test theory and has been shown to be psychometrically sound among various populations. However, it's current three subscales are rarely used in clinical practice, offering potential for an abbreviated version that reduces administrative burden and can be used to estimate full scale scores, yet is not bound by the inclusion of items from each subscale. Hence, the aim of the current study was to develop a unidimensional abbreviated version of the PCS through findings from qualitative, classical test theory, and newer Rasch analysis. METHODS: The current cross-sectional study used data from the Quebec Pain Registry (n = 5646) to obtain PCS scores of people seeking care at tertiary chronic pain centres. To develop an abbreviated unidimensional tool, items were removed based on triangulation of qualitative review of each item and response, corrected item-total correlations, and Rasch analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the final remaining items to confirm the tool was assessing a single latent construct (catastrophizing). Fit was assessed using the cumulative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA). RESULTS: After triangulation, a final abbreviated 4-item scale showed adequate model fit with a strong correlation (r > 0.95) with the original scale and properties that were stable across age, sex, cause, and medicolegal status. Additionally, the brief version addressed some problematic wording on some items on the original scale. Both the original and new abbreviated tool were associated with the Beck Depression Inventory and the Brief Pain Inventory at the same magnitude. CONCLUSION: The abbreviated scale may allow for a decrease in administrator burden and greater clinical uptake when a quick screen for exaggerated negative orientation towards pain is needed.

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 · 10.1186/s12955-020-01346-8

Cites

28 of 28 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

Authors
Walton, D. M., Mehta, S., Seo, W., & MacDermid, J. C.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Walton, David M.
Venue
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published
2020-05-07
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
124-124
ISSN
1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3022768534
Cited by
38
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Institute of Gender and Health (137148)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
Pain Catastrophizing Scale, pain catastrophizing, chronic pain, Rasch analysis, item removal, psychometric validation, unidimensional measurement, Beck Depression Inventory, Brief Pain Inventory
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Catastrophization

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