A multi-center evaluation of the McGill Pain Questionnaire: results from more than 1700 chronic pain patients

Abstract

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.

Shoulder pain following tetraplegia: a follow-up study 2–4 years after injury

“…The WUSPI was adapted to enable it to be administered verbally, therefore we cannot compare absolute scores with other authors although the relative difficulty of an activity due to pain can still be compared. Questions have been raised about the factor structure of the MPQ 29,30 and overlap between subclasses. 31,32 At the time this study was commenced the MPQ was the most comprehensive, validated tool available to qualitatively describe pain.…”

El cuestionario de dolor de McGill (McGill Pain Questionnaire -MPQ) : consideraciones lingüísticas y estadísticas

“…Posteriormente, Jerome et al (1988) concluyeron que el depender de sólo las tres dimensiones (sensorial, afectiva y evaluativa) puede conducir a la pérdida de información diagnóstica debido a la restricción de varianza asociada con un posible nú-mero insuficiente de factores. Evidentemente, la estructura factorial del MPQ todavía resulta algo incierta, ya que muchos estudios factoriales resultan insatisfactorios por muestras pequeñas y por el uso de una metodología pobre o inapropiada (véanse Fernandez y Turk, 1992;Holroyd et al, 1992). En relación con la fiabilidad, un estudio de Graham et al (1980) mostró que la consistencia en la elección de las subclases de descriptores del dolor iba del 66% al 80%, a partir de la cuarta administración del MPQ en pacientes de cáncer.…”

“…La cuestión de la estructura tripartita del MPQ ha sido elaborada de una manera más eficaz en un estudio estadísticamente riguroso con alrededor de 2000 enfermos con dolor crónico, procedentes de seis programas de tratamiento de dolor (Holroyd et al, 1992). Aunque un modelo de tres factores proporcionó una mejor adecuación que un modelo unifactorial, el análisis factorial jerárquico reveló que dos tercios de la varianza explicada por la estructura factorial más adecuada, tenía varianza común compartida con los tres factores de primer orden.…”

Pain measurement in arthritis

“…Factor analytic studies have shown that distinct intensity and affective dimensions underlie the MPQ responses of patients with back pain [31] and various forms of arthritis [32]. Nevertheless, patients' scores on the four PRIs that may be derived from the MPQ are significantly, albeit moderately, correlated with one another [33].…”