Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire

Metacognitions, which are beliefs about our own thinking processes, can modulate worry and rumination and thereby influence emotional distress. This study aimed to develop a self-report measure of unhelpful pain-related metacognitions which might serve as a clinical and research tool to better under...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Robert Schütze, Clare Rees, Anne Smith, Helen Slater, Mark Catley, Peter O’Sullivan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-04-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00910/full
id doaj-b778649e6017450f9037f88997bbcf29
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b778649e6017450f9037f88997bbcf292020-11-24T20:42:09ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782019-04-011010.3389/fpsyg.2019.00910431490Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions QuestionnaireRobert Schütze0Robert Schütze1Clare Rees2Anne Smith3Helen Slater4Mark Catley5Peter O’Sullivan6School of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, AustraliaSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA, AustraliaSchool of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, AustraliaSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA, AustraliaSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA, AustraliaSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, AustraliaSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, WA, AustraliaMetacognitions, which are beliefs about our own thinking processes, can modulate worry and rumination and thereby influence emotional distress. This study aimed to develop a self-report measure of unhelpful pain-related metacognitions which might serve as a clinical and research tool to better understand pain catastrophizing, a significant risk factor for adverse pain outcomes. Two phases of validation are presented. Phase 1 reports on how the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire (PMQ) was empirically developed through a qualitative study of 20 people with chronic back (n = 15) or knee (n = 5) pain in secondary or tertiary care and then validated in a large internet sample of people experiencing pain (N = 864). Rasch analysis yielded a 21-item scale with two dimensions (positive and negative metacognition) assessing how useful and problematic people believe rumination about pain to be, respectively. In Phase 2, further validation using a new sample (N = 510) replicated initial findings. Both PMQ subscales have good retest reliability (r = 0.76, r = 0.72) and internal consistency (0.86, 0.87). They correlate negatively with mindfulness and positively with pain intensity, disability, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, rumination, and metacognition. The PMQ also predicts unique variance in catastrophizing when other variables are controlled and predicts ‘patient’ status for pain catastrophizing. Sensitivity analysis yielded preliminary suggestions for clinically meaningful cut-offs. Unhelpful pain metacognitions can be validly and reliably measured using a self-report instrument. Future studies using the PMQ might shed new light on pain-related thinking processes to develop better interventions for people prone to worry and rumination about their pain.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00910/fullmetacognitionpainassessmentcatastrophizingpsychometricsrepetitive negative thinking
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Robert Schütze
Robert Schütze
Clare Rees
Anne Smith
Helen Slater
Mark Catley
Peter O’Sullivan
spellingShingle Robert Schütze
Robert Schütze
Clare Rees
Anne Smith
Helen Slater
Mark Catley
Peter O’Sullivan
Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
Frontiers in Psychology
metacognition
pain
assessment
catastrophizing
psychometrics
repetitive negative thinking
author_facet Robert Schütze
Robert Schütze
Clare Rees
Anne Smith
Helen Slater
Mark Catley
Peter O’Sullivan
author_sort Robert Schütze
title Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_short Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_full Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_fullStr Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_full_unstemmed Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_sort assessing beliefs underlying rumination about pain: development and validation of the pain metacognitions questionnaire
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2019-04-01
description Metacognitions, which are beliefs about our own thinking processes, can modulate worry and rumination and thereby influence emotional distress. This study aimed to develop a self-report measure of unhelpful pain-related metacognitions which might serve as a clinical and research tool to better understand pain catastrophizing, a significant risk factor for adverse pain outcomes. Two phases of validation are presented. Phase 1 reports on how the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire (PMQ) was empirically developed through a qualitative study of 20 people with chronic back (n = 15) or knee (n = 5) pain in secondary or tertiary care and then validated in a large internet sample of people experiencing pain (N = 864). Rasch analysis yielded a 21-item scale with two dimensions (positive and negative metacognition) assessing how useful and problematic people believe rumination about pain to be, respectively. In Phase 2, further validation using a new sample (N = 510) replicated initial findings. Both PMQ subscales have good retest reliability (r = 0.76, r = 0.72) and internal consistency (0.86, 0.87). They correlate negatively with mindfulness and positively with pain intensity, disability, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, rumination, and metacognition. The PMQ also predicts unique variance in catastrophizing when other variables are controlled and predicts ‘patient’ status for pain catastrophizing. Sensitivity analysis yielded preliminary suggestions for clinically meaningful cut-offs. Unhelpful pain metacognitions can be validly and reliably measured using a self-report instrument. Future studies using the PMQ might shed new light on pain-related thinking processes to develop better interventions for people prone to worry and rumination about their pain.
topic metacognition
pain
assessment
catastrophizing
psychometrics
repetitive negative thinking
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00910/full
work_keys_str_mv AT robertschutze assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT robertschutze assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT clarerees assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT annesmith assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT helenslater assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT markcatley assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT peterosullivan assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
_version_ 1716823106774892544