Towery S, Fernandez E
Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA.
Clin J Pain. 1996 Dec;12(4):270-6. doi: 10.1097/00002508-199612000-00006.
This study was designed to test the stability of recent findings by the authors showing that 40% of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) descriptors of pain sensation were not classifiable in any MPQ subcategory because of incomprehension, underuse, or ambiguity of usage. The study also was intended to determine the pain intensity ratings for the descriptors and how they relate to the original ratings provided by Melzack and Torgerson.
The sample size was twice that of the previous sample; 140 subjects (whose first language was English) assigned MPQ descriptors to individual sensory subcategories and then rated their implied intensity of pain. As in the first study, data were analyzed by a three-step decision rule incorporating the absolute frequency, relative frequency, and distribution of word assignments to the subcategories. Subjects were undergraduate students in a health psychology class at Southern Methodist University.
Twenty-eight of the 32 words retained in the first study also satisfied criteria for inclusion in the present study, and four additional words that were not included in the first study satisfied the decision rule in the present study. As in the first study, intensity ratings of retained words correlated very highly with those reported by Melzack and Torgerson.
A parsimonious set of 32 words can be adopted from the MPQ for efficient and unambiguous use in the clinical assessment of pain.
本研究旨在检验作者近期的研究结果是否具有稳定性,该结果表明,由于理解困难、使用不足或用法模糊,麦吉尔疼痛问卷(MPQ)中40%的疼痛感觉描述词无法归入任何MPQ子类别。该研究还旨在确定这些描述词的疼痛强度评级,以及它们与梅尔扎克和托格森提供的原始评级之间的关系。
样本量是之前样本的两倍;140名受试者(母语为英语)将MPQ描述词分配到各个感觉子类别中,然后对其隐含的疼痛强度进行评级。与第一项研究一样,数据通过三步决策规则进行分析,该规则纳入了子类别中单词分配的绝对频率、相对频率和分布情况。受试者是南卫理公会大学健康心理学课程的本科生。
第一项研究中保留的32个单词中有28个也符合纳入本研究的标准,另外4个未包含在第一项研究中的单词在本研究中符合决策规则。与第一项研究一样,保留单词的强度评级与梅尔扎克和托格森报告的评级高度相关。
可以从MPQ中采用一组简洁的32个单词,以便在疼痛的临床评估中高效且明确地使用。