1991
DOI: 10.1037/h0079083
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Empirical dimensions of coping in chronic pain patients: A factorial analysis.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

5
39
0
1

Year Published

1994
1994
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
5
39
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Two criteria were used to determine whether CSQ individual items loaded on one of the derived scales consistent with previous factor analytic studies of the CSQ, 43,61,63,74,79 such that (1) the item loaded at or above 0.500 and (2) the difference in magnitude between the highest and next highest factor loadings for that item had to exceed 0.200.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Two criteria were used to determine whether CSQ individual items loaded on one of the derived scales consistent with previous factor analytic studies of the CSQ, 43,61,63,74,79 such that (1) the item loaded at or above 0.500 and (2) the difference in magnitude between the highest and next highest factor loadings for that item had to exceed 0.200.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3,6,15,58,59 Yet other researchers reported that the amount of variance explained by the Praying-Hoping subscale was fairly low across a number of earlier studies in pain populations, and they suggested that such associations might have been spurious. 79 Conversely, Haythornthwaite et al 30 reported that Praying-Hoping was the coping strategy most reported. Correspondingly, the Praying-Hoping scale on the CSQ-R seemed to be quite meaningful for this present sample, and it was particularly noteworthy for African American subjects who most strongly endorsed its items.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…For example, Swartzman et al (24), studying whiplash following motor vehicle accidents, and Tuttle et al (27), in an analysis of a heterogeneous group of pain patients, found 5 factors: catastrophizing, ignoring sensations, reinterpreting sensations, praying/hoping, and distracting/ diverting attention. Lawson et al (28) factor analyzed the CSQ subscales scores from 5 different pain populations instead of individual items and found 3 primary superordinate factors: 1) a conscious cognitive coping dimension that captures ignoring pain sensations, using coping self-statements, and reinterpreting pain sensations; 2) a dimension composed of patients' appraisals of their ability to control and decrease pain; and 3) a more unstable dimension that involves diverting attention with praying and hoping.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%