BACKGROUND: The Pain Response Preference Questionnaire (PRPQ) assesses preferences regarding pain-related social support. The initial factor analytical study of the PRPQ produced four empirically supported scales labelled Solicitude, Management, Encouragement and Suppression. A second study produced similar findings, but suggested that the Management and Encouragement scales be combined into a single scale labelled Activity Direction. OBJECTIVES: To use factor analytical methods to evaluate these competing configurations of the PRPQ (ie, three versus four scales) and to further refine the measure. The ability of the PRPQ scales to account for pain severity and disability ratings was also evaluated. METHODS: Chronic pain patients (n=201) completed the PRPQ along with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and self-reports of pain severity and disability. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that both models tested provided a poor fit to the data. A follow-up exploratory factor analysis was used to further refine the PRPQ scales and resulted in scales labelled Solicitude, Encouragement and Suppression. Supportive of the potential clinical utility of the PRPQ, Suppression was positively associated with pain severity and Solicitude was positively associated with disability. These two scales were also positively associated with the PCS. Supportive of the incremental validity of the PRPQ, a multiple regression analysis indicated that the Solicitude scale accounted for unique variance in disability ratings beyond that accounted for by demographic⁄clinical variables and the PCS. CONCLUSIONS: The PRPQ has promise as a clinical assessment measure and for advancing research examining the interpersonal context of pain.
BACKGROUND: The Pain Response Preference Questionnaire (PRPQ) assesses preferences regarding pain-related social support. The initial factor analytical study of the PRPQ produced four empirically supported scales labelled Solicitude, Management, Encouragement and Suppression. A second study produced similar findings, but suggested that the Management and Encouragement scales be combined into a single scale labelled Activity Direction. OBJECTIVES: To use factor analytical methods to evaluate these competing configurations of the PRPQ (ie, three versus four scales) and to further refine the measure. The ability of the PRPQ scales to account for pain severity and disability ratings was also evaluated. METHODS:Chronic painpatients (n=201) completed the PRPQ along with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and self-reports of pain severity and disability. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that both models tested provided a poor fit to the data. A follow-up exploratory factor analysis was used to further refine the PRPQ scales and resulted in scales labelled Solicitude, Encouragement and Suppression. Supportive of the potential clinical utility of the PRPQ, Suppression was positively associated with pain severity and Solicitude was positively associated with disability. These two scales were also positively associated with the PCS. Supportive of the incremental validity of the PRPQ, a multiple regression analysis indicated that the Solicitude scale accounted for unique variance in disability ratings beyond that accounted for by demographic⁄clinical variables and the PCS. CONCLUSIONS: The PRPQ has promise as a clinical assessment measure and for advancing research examining the interpersonal context of pain.