Objective and Subjective Measurement of Pain: Current Approaches for Forensic Applications

Sherman, Jeffrey J.; Ohrbach, Richard

doi:10.1007/0-387-25610-5_11

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At 3- and 12-month follow-up, participants rated the average pain that they had experienced during the previous 2 weeks. The VAS is one of the most commonly used measures of perception of pain intensity (Sherman & Ohrbach, 2006 ) and provides a reliable and change-sensitive measurement of subjective experience of pain (Jensen, Karoly, & Braver, 1986 ; Price, McGarath, Rafii, & Buckingham, 1983 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and pain intensity following severe injury: the role of catastrophizing

Carty

O’Donnell

Evans

et al. 2011

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA number of theories have proposed possible mechanisms that may explain the high rates of comorbidity between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and persistent pain; however, there has been limited research investigating these factors.ObjectiveThe present study sought to prospectively examine whether catastrophizing predicted the development of PTSD symptoms and persistent pain following physical injury.DesignParticipants (N=208) completed measures of PTSD symptomatology, pain intensity and catastrophizing during hospitalization following severe injury, and 3 and 12 months postinjury. Cross-lagged path analysis explored the longitudinal relationship between these variables.ResultsAcute catastrophizing significantly predicted PTSD symptoms but not pain intensity 3 months postinjury. In turn, 3-month catastrophizing predicted pain intensity, but not PTSD symptoms 12 months postinjury. Indirect relations were also found between acute catastrophizing and 12-month PTSD symptoms and pain intensity. Relations were mediated via 3-month PTSD symptoms and 3-month catastrophizing, respectively. Acute symptoms did not predict 3-month catastrophizing and catastrophizing did not fully account for the relationship between PTSD symptoms and pain intensity.ConclusionsFindings partially support theories that propose a role for catastrophizing processes in understanding vulnerability to pain and posttrauma symptomatology and, thus, a possible mechanism for comorbidity between these conditions.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and pain intensity following severe injury: the role of catastrophizing

Carty

O’Donnell

Evans

et al. 2011

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sherman and Ohrbach (2006) made clear that there is no one psychometric instrument or technique that can mark such behavior. Part of the psychological factors in reported pain experience may refer to illness deception, symptom exaggeration, malingering, and the like, and assessors need to be aware of and carefully evaluate these motives.…”

Section: Mild Traumatic Brain Injurymentioning

confidence: 98%

Psychological Injury and Law: An Integrative Model

Young

2008

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article briefly reviews the literature on three areas of psychological injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, and traumatic brain injury, preparatory to presentation of an integrated biopsychosocial and forensic model of multifactorial causality. The model is the first in the field to (a) cover in one model the three types of psychological injury, (b) while including a full range of causality factors relevant to forensic psychology (such as pre-event, event-, post-event, and unrelated factors), and (c) while addressing the relevance of biopsychological and stress as a cohering factors in all conditions. (d) The model emphasizes the importance of individual differences, for example, in causality of symptom presentation. (e) The model acknowledges that in individual evaluations, psychologists need to consider threats to validity, response biases, and possible malingering, and verify whether preevent factors fully explain post-event presentation.

show abstract

“…The newest advances within this model attempt to explain the interactions, cognitions, and motivations of the injured person in the medico-legal and compensation context, thus bringing it closer to the biopsychosocial approach (Hadjistavropoulos and Beiling 2001;Sherman and Ohrback 2006). Within this expanded forensic model, Dersh et al (2004) describe primary, secondary, and tertiary gains and losses that may serve to impact the interaction between the injured individual and the larger disability-related system.…”

Section: Biomedical and Forensic Modelsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Disentangling the Disability Quagmire in Psychological Injury and Law

Schultz

Stewart

2008

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to critically analyze the evolution of six models of conceptualization, determination, and prediction of occupational disability relevant in the medicolegal context of psychological injury. The six models are the (a) biomedical, (b) forensic, (c) psychosocial, (d) ecological, (e) economic, and (f) biopsychosocial. We will discuss the key commonalities and differences among the models, including disciplinary tradition, research paradigm, recognition of person-environment interaction, key tenets, and implications for practice and research in psychological injury. The paper will highlight and discuss psychosocial issues, often underemphasized in forensic psychological practice, including: (a) balanced assessment of primary, secondary, and tertiary gains and losses, (b) self-perception, (c) disability identity, (d) beliefs and expectations, (e) coping, (f) adaptation and positive growth, (g) social stigma and social reactions to disability, including disability harassment, and (h) recognition of system-based environmental influences and demands. We will provide a special focus on the current state of the science and practice of prediction of disability, of particular interest to researchers and clinicians involved in clinical and occupational prognostication in psychological injuries. Finally, we will draw conclusions and recommendations for future research and best practices in the psychological injury area using a cross-diagnostic, dynamic, functionally based, and integrated biopsychosocial and forensic model of disability.

show abstract

Objective and Subjective Measurement of Pain: Current Approaches for Forensic Applications

Cited by 9 publications

References 56 publications

Predicting posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and pain intensity following severe injury: the role of catastrophizing

Predicting posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and pain intensity following severe injury: the role of catastrophizing

Psychological Injury and Law: An Integrative Model

Disentangling the Disability Quagmire in Psychological Injury and Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About