| Title |
The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Further Psychometric Evaluation with Adult Samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, August 2000
|
| DOI | 10.1023/a:1005548801037 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Augustine Osman, Francisco X. Barrios, Peter M. Gutierrez, Beverly A. Kopper, Traci Merrifield, Lee Grittmann |
| Abstract |
Previous studies with undergraduates have provided support for the reliability and oblique three-factor structure of a new scale, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). We examined the reliability and validity of the PCS in adult community and pain outpatient samples. The PCS showed a high internal consistency in both groups. Using data from the community sample, confirmatory factor analyses showed that the PCS taps a single construct characterized by three related dimensions. Gender differences were obtained on the PCS total score in the community and the outpatient samples. The analyses also showed significant differences between the community and the outpatient samples on the PCS total and subscales. Overall, the results showed strong evidence of criterion-related, concurrent, and discriminant validity for the PCS in the community sample. Limitations of the present study are discussed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 447 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 432 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 83 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 63 | 14% |
| Researcher | 49 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 34 | 8% |
| Other | 96 | 21% |
| Unknown | 80 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 121 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 89 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 67 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 18 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 3% |
| Other | 28 | 6% |
| Unknown | 111 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2022.
All research outputs
#4,297,832
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#277
of 1,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,194
of 38,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 38,128 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them