Catastrophizing research:
Avoiding conceptual errors and maintaining a balanced perspective
This Commentary addresses some common conceptual errors and methodological issues raised by the Focus article by Geisser, Robinson, and Riley. One conceptual error, the problem of confounding coping with outcome, is evident in their assertion that catastrophizing is not a form of coping, but rather a maladaptive pain belief. Catastrophizing clearly fits current definitions of coping, even though it may be associated with negative outcomes. A second conceptual error is the tendency to oversimplify the coping process that is evident in the tendency to divide coping strategies into dichotomous categories (eg, active vs passive, adaptive vs maladaptive). Methodological issues raised by this article include: (1) the need to recognize the strengths of existing pain coping instruments (eg, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire), and (2) the utility of new and alternative coping measures. This Commentary concludes with a discussion of important directions for future research on pain coping.
Key words: catastrophizing, coping, confounding, oversimplification
No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
PII: S1082-3174(99)70004-8
doi:10.1016/S1082-3174(99)70004-8
© 1999 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
