Manipulation of pain catastrophizing: An experimental study of healthy participants

This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on reporting of high-quality laboratory and clinical findings in all fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Sign up for email alerts here.

52,235 Monthly downloads/views I 2.832 Impact Factor I 4.5 CiteScore I 1.2 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.655 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Manipulation of pain catastrophizing: An experimental study of healthy participants

Author(s): Joel E Bialosky, Adam Hirsh, Michael Robinson, Steven Z George

Publication date: 2008-11-01

Publisher: Dove Medical Press

Keywords: pain, catastrophizing, experimental, cold pressor task, pain catastrophizing scale

Read this article at

ScienceOpen PMC

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Pain catastrophizing is associated with the pain experience; however, causation has not been established. Studies which specifically manipulate catastrophizing are necessary to establish causation. The present study enrolled 100 healthy individuals. Participants were randomly assigned to repeat a positive, neutral, or one of three catastrophizing statements during a cold pressor task (CPT). Outcome measures of pain tolerance and pain intensity were recorded. No change was noted in catastrophizing immediately following the CPT (F(1,84) = 0.10, p = 0.75, partial η2 < 0.01) independent of group assignment (F(4,84) = 0.78, p = 0.54, partial η2 = 0.04). Pain tolerance (F(4) = 0.67, p = 0.62, partial η2 = 0.03) and pain intensity (F(4) = 0.73, p = 0.58, partial η2 = 0.03) did not differ by group. This study suggests catastrophizing may be difficult to manipulate through experimental pain procedures and repetition of specific catastrophizing statements was not sufficient to change levels of catastrophizing. Additionally, pain tolerance and pain intensity did not differ by group assignment. This study has implications for future studies attempting to experimentally manipulate pain catastrophizing.

Most cited references 30

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Theoretical perspectives on the relation between catastrophizing and pain.

Michael Sullivan, Beverly Thorn, Jennifer Haythornthwaite … (2001)

The tendency to "catastrophize" during painful stimulation contributes to more intense pain experience and increased emotional distress. Catastrophizing has been broadly conceived as an exaggerated negative "mental set" brought to bear during painful experiences. Although findings have been consistent in showing a relation between catastrophizing and pain, research in this area has proceeded in the relative absence of a guiding theoretical framework. This article reviews the literature on the relation between catastrophizing and pain and examines the relative strengths and limitations of different theoretical models that could be advanced to account for the pattern of available findings. The article evaluates the explanatory power of a schema activation model, an appraisal model, an attention model, and a communal coping model of pain perception. It is suggested that catastrophizing might best be viewed from the perspective of hierarchical levels of analysis, where social factors and social goals may play a role in the development and maintenance of catastrophizing, whereas appraisal-related processes may point to the mechanisms that link catastrophizing to pain experience. Directions for future research are suggested.

0 comments Cited 453 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods

Mark P. Jensen, Paul Karoly, Sanford H. Braver (1986)

The measurement of subjective pain intensity continues to be important to both researchers and clinicians. Although several scales are currently used to assess the intensity construct, it remains unclear which of these provides the most precise, replicable, and predictively valid measure. Five criteria for judging intensity scales have been considered in previous research: ease of administration of scoring; relative rates of incorrect responding; sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories; sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and the magnitude of the relationship between each scale and a linear combination of pain intensity indices. In order to judge commonly used pain intensity measures, 75 chronic pain patients were asked to rate 4 kinds of pain (present, least, most, and average) using 6 scales. The utility and validity of the scales was judged using the criteria listed above. The results indicate that, for the present sample, the scales yield similar results in terms of the number of subjects who respond correctly to them and their predictive validity. However, when considering the remaining 3 criteria, the 101-point numerical rating scale appears to be the most practical index.

0 comments Cited 192 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale.

A. Osman, F X Barrios, B Kopper … (1997)

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.