We argue that the conflicting results reported in previous studies examining the factor structure of the McGill Pain Questionnaire Pain Rating Index (PRI) can be explained by differences in the patient samples and statistical analyses used across studies. In an effort to clarify the factor structure of the PRI, 3 different factor models were compared using confirmatory factor analysis in 2 samples of low-back pain patients (N = 1372) and in a third sample of patients suffering from other chronic pain problems (N = 423). A 4-factor model, similar to those obtained in previous studies where multiple criteria were used to determine the number of factors extracted, best explained covariation among PRI subclasses. However, relatively high interfactor correlations (approximately two-thirds of the variance explained by the best fitting factor structure was common variance) cast doubt on the discriminant validity of PRI subscales; examination of relationships between the PRI and MMPI subscales also failed to provide evidence of the discriminant validity or clinical utility of PRI subscales. Reducing the information from the 10 PRI sensory subclasses to a single subscale score may seriously limit the usefulness of the PRI. Alternate methods of using PRI data are suggested.
A perennial problem for mental health planners is assessing community needs and existing services. The three most common methods used to obtain this data are the telephone survey, the mail-out questionnaire, and the face-to-face interview. However, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with each approach in terms of sampling, response rates, and economic costs. The present study utilized all three methods to survey the same community population in order to determine the comparability of obtained data and relative efficacy of the methods. A standard 21-item questionnaire was developed to obtain demographic and epidemiological data. This included nine Likert-type items to obtain opionions on a typical question such as "To what extent would you have confidence in recommending the Mental Health Center to members of your immediate family?" In the first method, survey teams made door-to-door interviews to complete 449 questionnaires on a random sample. In the second method, 1,000 questionnaires were mailed to a random sample with returns requested. In the third method, 224 people were randomly selected from the telephone directory and asked to respond to the questionnaire over the phone. Precautions were taken in all methods to ensure confidentiality of responses. All respondents were classified according to a two-factor index based on occupation and education. The data were analyed to determine whether comparable data were obtained through divergent methods. Results are discussed and implications are given for community mental health planners.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.