Research report: PDF OnlyA multi-center evaluation of the McGill Pain Questionnaire: results from more than 1700 chronic pain patientsHolroyd, Kenneth A.1,a; Holm, Jeffrey E.a,∗; Keefe, Francis J.b; Turner, Judith A.c; Bradley, Laurence A.d,∗∗∗∗; Murphy, William D.e; Johnson, Patrickf; Anderson, Karend,∗∗; Hinkle, Andrew L.g; O'Malley, Brian W.h,∗∗∗ Author Information aDepartment of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701 USA bDuke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710 USA cDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195 USA dDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27103 USA eDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Tennessee Center for Health Sciences, Memphis, TN 38104 USA fDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195 USA gHealth Psychology Department, J. Leonard Camera Rehabilitation Center, The Industrial Commission of Ohio, Columbus, OH 43221 USA hDepartment of Psychiatry, Ohio State University Medical School, Columbus, OH 43210 USA 1Correspondence to: K.A. Holroyd, Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA. ∗Current address: J.E. Holm, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, Box 7187, University Station, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA. ∗∗∗∗Current address: W.B. O'Malley, Ph.D. FRYE Regional Medical Center, 420 N. Center St., Hickory, NC 28601, USA. ∗∗Current address: K. Anderson, Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Worcester, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. ∗∗∗Current address: L.A. Bradley, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. (Received 5 February 1991; revised 19 June 1991; accepted 23 July 1991.) Pain: March 1992 - Volume 48 - Issue 3 - p 301-311 doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90077-O Buy Metrics 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. © Lippincott-Raven Publishers.