ArticleFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2024
Assessing how individuals conceptualize numeric pain ratings: validity and reliability of the Pain Schema Inventory (PSI-6) Short Form.
Article in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When Pain Catastrophizing Is Not Catastrophizing: Identifying Normative From Exaggerated Responses Relative to Referent Pain Intensity.Pain research & management · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: While numeric scales to represent pain intensity have been well validated, individuals use various conceptualizations when assigning a number to pain intensity, referred to as pain rating schema. The 18-item Pain Schema Inventory (PSI-18) quantifies pain rating schema by asking for numeric values for multiple mild, moderate or severe pain conditions. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of a shortened form of the PSI, using only 6 items (PSI-6). Methods: A secondary analysis was performed on two existing datasets. The first ( Results: Both the PSI-18 and PSI-6 demonstrated excellent face validity. The PSI-6 demonstrated excellent convergent validity relative to the PSI-18, with correlations from r = 0.88 to 0.92. Bland-Altman plots revealed offset biases near zero (< 0.22 on 0-10 scale) across all categories of mild, moderate, severe and average pain. Internal consistency was excellent, with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.91 and 0.80, for PSI-18 and PSI-6 respectively. Test-retest reliability of the PSI-6 was high with correlations from r = 0.70-0.76. Conclusion: The PSI-6 is a valid and reliable tool to assess pain rating schema with reduced subject burden, to better interpret individuals' pain ratings and adjust for inter-individual variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.