The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) measures pain catastrophizing. Pain catastrophizing is defined as an exaggerated negative reaction during actual or anticipated painful experiences. Catastrophic thinking contributes to higher levels of pain and emotional distress, increasing the likelihood that the pain will persist over an extended period of time.
Measures Registry
Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)
Description
Purpose
The purpose of the PCS is to serve as a self-report measure that can detect catastrophizing (i.e., a negative reaction to pain) in both clinical and non-clinical populations.
Population
Undergraduate students
Year of Publication
1995
Reference
Sullivan, M. J. L., Bishop, S. R., & Pivik, J. (1995). The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 7(4), 524-532. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524
Number of Items
13
Scale Types (Likert=Likert Type; MC=Multiple Choice; T/F=True/False; OR=Open Response)
Likert Type
Likert: 0 = Not at all, 1 = To a slight degree, 2 = To a moderate degree, 3 = To a great degree, 4 = All the time
Subscales
Rumination
Magnification
Helplessness
Scoring
In this study, a score above 24 on the PCS classified the respondent as a catastrophizer. A score below 15 on the PCS classified the respondent as a non-catastrophizer. Cutoff scores corresponded to the upper and lower thirds of the distribution of PCS scores among study participants.
Administration
Self-Administered
Readability/ Literacy Level
N/A
Reliability
Test-retest correlations across a 6-week period in one study described in the source article were r = 0.75, indicating a high degree of temporal stability for the PCS.
An additional study described in the source article found that test-retest correlations across a 10-week period were r = 0.70, also indicating a high degree of temporal stability for the PCS.
Validity
Construct validity of the PCS was determined by doing two additional studies. In the first study, the researchers compared participant responses to the PCS questionnaire to their responses during an interview while having one arm immersed in ice water. In the second study, the researchers compared participant responses to the PCS questionnaire to their responses during an interview while undergoing electrical stimulation of nerves with needle electrodes. Findings indicated that those with higher scores on the PCS also experienced more emotional distress during the ice water immersion and the electrical stimulation, indicating that the measure is a valid index of catastrophizing.
Predictive validity of the PCS is high, given that scores obtained 10-weeks prior to testing were significantly correlated, r = 0.33, with pain ratings during the ice water immersion.
Limitations
The PCS requires respondents to rely on their memory of past painful experiences to answer items. Additionally, the pain situations used in the studies described in the source article (i.e., ice water immersion and electrical stimulation) were non-threatening, which may have contributed to underestimates of participant pain. Finally, the studies described in the source article all had relatively small sample sizes.
Availability
Publicly Available
Cost
Free
Other Considerations
N/A