1991
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.1991.hed3102111.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Relationship Between MMPI Cluster Membership and Diagnostic Category in Headache Patients

Abstract: Only one study has examined MMPI cluster profiles in the headache population. The present study expanded on this previous investigation by using a large sample size (N = 485) and a greater number of diagnostic categories. The five MMPI clusters replicated previous findings in the chronic pain literature. These MMPI cluster groups were compared to 5 diagnostic categories (migraine, cluster, post-trauma, tension, mixed). No relationship was found between cluster type and headache diagnosis. While the diagnostic … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
24
1
3

Year Published

1991
1991
2003
2003

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
4
24
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Once in hierarchical clusters, the data were organized such that each datapoint started at one end of the hierarchy tree and were grouped until all the data were in one large group. The stopping rule developed by Robinson and colleagues was applied [58]. This clustering strategy produced four clusters of behaviors and cognitions with means significantly greater than the mean of the entire sample (see Fig.…”
Section: Analysis Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Once in hierarchical clusters, the data were organized such that each datapoint started at one end of the hierarchy tree and were grouped until all the data were in one large group. The stopping rule developed by Robinson and colleagues was applied [58]. This clustering strategy produced four clusters of behaviors and cognitions with means significantly greater than the mean of the entire sample (see Fig.…”
Section: Analysis Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Entsprechend werden auch häufig die für Kopfschmerzpatienten gefundenen Persönlichkeitsabweichungen als sekundäre psychologische Reaktionen auf den chronischen Schmerz interpretiert [13, 34, 84 ± 88]. Untersuchungen, die sich auf MMPI-Befunde (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, [89]) beziehen und verschiedene Kopfschmerz-oder andere Schmerzgruppen miteinander vergleichen, fanden überwiegend bei Patienten mit den stärksten oder häufigsten Schmerzen die prominentesten MMPI-Abweichungen [34,88,90,91]. Es ist dargestellt worden, dass im MMPI chronische Schmerzpatienten jeglicher Art mit erhöhten Neurotizismuswerten eingestuft werden [92].…”
Section: Migräne Und Stressbewältigungunclassified
“…AuchHuber D. Migräne ± Persönlichkeit und Stressbewältigung ¼ Psychother Psych Med 2003; 53: 432 ± 439Dieter u. Swerdlow[33] und Robinson et al[34] gehen davon aus, dass die Veränderungen im MMPI zumindest zum Teil die vorhandenen Schmerzsymptome und damit eher Copingfähigkeiten als Persönlichkeitsveränderungen widerspiegeln. Für die Hypothese eines sekundären Neurotizismus spricht auch, dass Persönlichkeitsveränderungen im MMPI zurückgehen, wenn sich durch eine ± zum Teil rein medikamentöse ± Behandlung die Kopfschmerzen bessern, wie wiederholt gezeigt werden konnte[32, 94 ± 96].…”
unclassified
“…Headache is not removed by these strategies, but their use leads to decreased psychopathology scores. In this respect, the hypothesis formulated in a recent study [56] appears to be meaningful, that some Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scales reflect the patients' response to pain and their score most likely is the result of coping resources rather than reflecting a headache-related personality style. Thus, the question requires clinicians to know how to correctly place the different aspects of headache.…”
Section: Second Level: Assessment O F the Psychosomatic Assetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Third Level: Psychopathological Assessment Many studies appeared aiming at psycho logical characterisation of headache, especial ly TTH (table 3) [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]. From a clinical standpoint, psychopathological evaluation.…”
Section: Second Level: Assessment O F the Psychosomatic Assetmentioning
confidence: 99%