The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pain-coping strategies in chronic pain patients: Psychometric characteristics of the pain-coping inventory (PCI)
Abstract
This article presents a series of studies aimed at validating a comprehensive pain-coping inventory (PCI) that is applicable to various types of patients with chronic pain. Item and scale analyses were performed for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), patients with chronic headache, and pain clinic outpatients. The following 6 scales were derived from a simultaneous component analysis: Pain Transformation, Distraction, Reducing Demands, Retreating, Worrying, and Resting, all of which were internally reliable. A higher order factor analysis grouped the PCI scales into active (transformation, distraction, reducing demands) and passive (retreating, worrying, resting) pain-coping dimensions. Differences in use of strategy found between RA patients and headache patients indicated that the PCI scales were sufficiently sensitive to measure differences between groups. Concurrent validity was assessed for patients with RA and patients with fibromyalgia and predictive validity was assessed for patients with recently diagnosed RA after 1 and 3 years. In both analyses the validity of the scales was supported, in particular the predictive validity of passive coping scales for future outcomes.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“compared to men, women have endorsed more frequent use of catastrophizing, behavioral activities, positive self-statements, social and emotional support, and problem-focused coping 148, 201–204.”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [204]
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
Arnett, F. C., Edworthy, S. M., Bloch, D. A., McShane, D. J., Fries, J. F., Cooper, N. S., Healey, L. A., Kaplan, S. R., Liang, M. H., Luthra, H. S., et al. (1988) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.1780310302 · Cited by 19,753
Revised Criteria for the Classification of Rheumatoid Arthritis
Arnett, F. C. (1990) · Orthopaedic Nursing · doi:10.1097/00006416-199003000-00011 · Cited by 7,742
Rosenstiel, A. K., & Keefe, F. J. (1983) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90125-2 · Cited by 2,314
Pain demands attention: A cognitive–affective model of the interruptive function of pain.
Eccleston, C., & Crombez, G. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.356 · Cited by 1,718
Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful transaction.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.66.1.184 · Cited by 1,030
Coping with chronic pain: a critical review of the literature
Jensen, M. P., Turner, J. A., Romano, J. M., & Karoly, P. (1991) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(91)90216-k · Cited by 835
Prevalence of chronic benign pain disorder among adults: a review of the literature
Verhaak, P. F. M., Kerssens, J. J., Dekker, J., Sorbi, M. J., & Bensing, J. M. (1998) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00117-1 · Cited by 743
Coping with rheumatoid arthritis pain: catastrophizing as a maladaptive strategy
Keefe, F. J., Brown, G. K., Wallston, K. A., & Caldwell, D. S. (1989) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(89)90152-8 · Cited by 694
Eysenck, M. W. (1982) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-68390-9 · Cited by 672
Beyond unfavorable thinking: the illness cognition questionnaire for chronic diseases
Evers, A. W. M., Kraaimaat, F. W., van Lankveld, W., Jongen, P. J. H., Jacobs, J. W. G., & Bijlsma, J. W. J. (2001) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.69.6.1026 · Cited by 657
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. (1992). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales. London: Hoddor and Houghton.
- Huiskes, C. J. A. E., Kraaimaat, F. W., & Bijlsma, J. W. J. (1990). Development of a self report questionnaire to assess the impact of rheumatic disease on health and lifestyle. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences, 3, 71–74.
- Kraaimaat, F. W., Bakker, A. H., & Evers, A. W. M. (1997). Pijncoping strategieen bij chronische pijn patienten: De ontwikkeling van de PijnCopingInventarisatielijst (PCI) [Pain coping strategies in chronic pain patients: The development of the Pain Coping Inventory (PCI)]. Gedragstherapie, 22, 267–277.
- Kraaimaat, F. W. & Huiskes, C. J. A. E. (1989). Stress en pijn bij patiënten met rheumatoide arthritis [Stress and pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis]. Gedragstherapie, 22, 267–277.
- Kraaimaat, F. W., & Zwart, F. M. (1984). De Hoofdpijn-vragenlijst [The Headache Questionnaire]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Academic Hospital.
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Post, D. (1980). De huisarts en zijn hoofdpijnpatiínten [The general practitioner and his headache patients]. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Stafleu.
- Sanderman, R., & Ormel, J. (1992). De Utrechtse Coping Lijst (UCL): Validiteit en betrouwbaarheid [The Utrecht Coping List (UCL): Validity and reliability]. Gedrag en Gezondheid, 20, 32–37.
- Schreurs, P. J. G., Willige, G. van de, Brosschot, J. F., Tellegen, B., & Graus, G. M. H. (1993). De Utrechtse coping lijst: UCL Handleiding [Manual of the Utrecht Coping List]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets, & Zeitlinger.
- Van der Ploeg, H. M., Defares, P. B. & Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Handleiding bij de Zelf Beoordelings Vragenlijsl, ZBV [Manual of the Dutch version of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
- Wilde, G. J. S. (1970). Neurotische labiliteit, gemeten volgens de vragenlijst methode [Neuroticism, measured by means of a self report inventory]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Van Rossen.
- Zwart, F. M. & Spooren, J. (1982). Ontwikkeling van een zelfbeoordelingsviagenlijst voor depressie [Developemnt of a self-report questionnaire for depression]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: University Medical Center.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment
Haanpää, M., Attal, N., Backonja, M., Baron, R., Bennett, M., Bouhassira, D., Cruccu, G., Hansson, P., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Iannetti, G. D., et al. (2011) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.07.031 · Cited by 1,060
Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes
Meints, S. M., & Edwards, R. R. (2018) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2018.01.017 · Cited by 719
“coping involves relinquishing control of pain to others (Obrist and Light, 1988; Snow-Turek et al., 1996; Kraaimaat and Evers, 2003).”
Nijs, J., Paul van Wilgen, C., Van Oosterwijck, J., van Ittersum, M., & Meeus, M. (2011) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2011.04.005 · Cited by 390
Evers, A. W. M., Kraaimaat, F. W., Geenen, R., Jacobs, J. W. G., & Bijlsma, J. W. J. (2003) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(03)00036-6 · Cited by 290
“Pain coping was assessed by the Pain Coping Inventory (PCI; Kraaimaat, Bakker, & Evers, 1997; Kraaimaat & Evers, 2003), measuring active and passive coping strategies when dealing with pain.”
MethodSelf-citationEekhout, I., de Vet, H. C. W., Twisk, J. W. R., Brand, J. P. L., de Boer, M. R., & Heymans, M. W. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.009 · Cited by 302
Metadata
- Authors
- Kraaimaat, F. W., & Evers, A. W. M.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Kraaimaat, Floris W.
- ORCID
- Evers, Andrea W. M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 343-363
- ISSN
- 1070-5503 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7558
- OpenAlex
- W1969226151
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 3.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Keywords
- pain coping, chronic pain, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic headache, fibromyalgia, psychometric validation, distraction, worry, rest, concurrent validity, predictive validity
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Chronic Disease, Fibromyalgia, Headache, Humans, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Principal Component Analysis
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
