ABS - Absurd Symptoms

This subscale measures patients' tendencies to endorse pain and other physical symptoms which are absurd/nonsensical or highly unusual. The symptoms in this subscale have no physiological or neurological basis, and are endorsed very rarely by patients in the normative sample.
The patient's T score of 42 on this subscale is within the normal range for pain patients.

Absurd Symptoms: (T) 42

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 16

ATY - Atypical Symptoms

This subscale is similar to the Absurd Symptom subscale in that it measures unusual symptom endorsement. It differs from the Absurd Symptoms subscale in that the symptoms that are represented in the subscale are legitimate, but are not commonly endorsed by pain patients. The items suggest severe pain symptoms and pain related activity limitation, but are not usually endorsed by patients suffering from pain with a clear organic etiology.
The patient's T score of 38 on this subscale is below average compared to other pain patients. He/she is less likely than other pain patients to endorse atypical symptoms. There may be a high concordance between the patients reported symptoms and actual organic pathology.

Atypical Symptoms: (T) 38

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 4

INF - Infrequent Symptoms

This subscale consists of a wide range of items, some that are bizarre and unlikely, others that are vague and not well localized, and others that are legitimate symptoms that are not likely the result of a pain condition. None of the items in this subscale are typically endorsed by pain patients
The patient's T score of 43 on this subscale is within the normal range compared to other pain patients.

Infrequent Symptoms: (T) 43

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 10

FRE - Frequent Symptoms

This subscale consists of a wide range of items that most pain patients strongly agree with. All items have obvious content and are related to muscle pain and activity limitation. None of the items contain psychological symptoms. Low scores on this subscale are more revealing than high scores since pain patients are expected to obtain high scores.
The patient's T score of 9 on this subscale is below average compared to other pain patients. Patient's with scores of this magnitude may not appear to be significantly impaired physically by their pain condition. Scores of this magnitude suggest the patient may have falsified his/her protocol by failing to endorse obvious and common pain symptoms.

Frequent Symptoms: (T) 9

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 10

MAX - Maximization

This subscale consists of a wide range of items that most pain patients strongly agree with. All items have obvious content and are related to muscle pain and activity limitation. None of the items contain psychological symptoms. Low scores on this subscale are more revealing than high scores since pain patients are expected to obtain high scores.
The patient's T score of 9 on this subscale is below average compared to other pain patients. Patient's with scores of this magnitude may not appear to be significantly impaired physically by their pain condition. Scores of this magnitude suggest the patient may have falsified his/her protocol by failing to endorse obvious and common pain symptoms.

Maximization: (T) 40

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 8

NEU - Neutral

This subscale measures patients' tendencies to endorse items with a consistently neutral level of agreement. This subscale measures the tendency to endorse symptoms without completely agreeing or disagree with them.
The patient's T score of 40 on this subscale is below the average range for pain patients. Scores of this magnitude suggest that the patient may have had a tendency to use extreme responses when endorsing symptoms. The MAX and MIN subscales should be checked to rule out this possibility.

Neutral: (T) 40

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 8

MIN - Minimization

This subscale measures a patient's tendency to consistently and strongly disagree with symptoms. Since the symptoms represented in this subscale are related to impairment, pain and mood disturbance, an average to low score on this subscale reflects a valid response pattern since pain patients are expected to endorse these symptoms at least to a moderate degree. Low to average scores on this subscale reflect a moderate to high level of impairment, pain and mood disturbance.
The patient's T score of 91 on this subscale is above normal compared to other pain patients. This score suggests that the patient may have been under-reporting his/her level of pain and related disability. The patient may also not be significantly impaired or emotionally distressed by his/her pain condition.
A score of this magnitude is related to a tendency to present oneself in a socially desirable way.

Minimization: (T) 91

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 8

DEF - Defensiveness

The Defensiveness subscale measures patients' lack of willingness to disclose information about their emotional condition, particularly how their emotional condition is affected by their pain.
The patient's T score of 65 on this subscale is above average compared to other pain patients. Scores of this magnitude reflect a significant unwilingness on the part of the patient to disclose relevant personal information about him/herself. Patients with similar scores tend to be reluctant to admit that their pain has caused them psychological distress. The higher the patient's score on this subscale, the lower the expected scores on the clinical subscales.
A score of this magnitude is related to a tendency to present oneself in a socially desirable way.

Defensiveness: (T) 65

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 15

SOC - Social Desirability

The Social Desirability subscale is a measure of a patient's tendency to present him/herself in a favorable/virtuous light.
The patient's T score of 67 on this subscale is above average compared to other pain patients. Scores of magnitude suggest the patient may be attempting to present him/herself in an unsofisticated or self-consciously 'virtuous' way. Scores of this magnitude suggest the patient is presenting him/herself in a overly positive light. The patient may be attempting to create an unrealistically favorable view of him/herself.
Scores of this magnitude are consistently related to lower scores on measures of psychopathology (including but not limited to the PSR-I Clinical scales). They tend to obtain high scores on the Minimization scale.

Social Desirability: (T) 67

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 9

VAR - Variable Item Inconsistency

Please note. This subscale has been recoded. High scores on this subscale reflect an INCONSISTENT response pattern.
The Variable Item Consistency subscale is composed of a series of item pairs that have opposite content (either opposite in content or negatively correlated). As with the Similar Item Inconsistency (SIM) scale, this score is based on the difference in responses given to items, but unlike the SIM the difference is between items with opposite content. The higher the score on this subscale, the more inconsistent the patient was when responding to the symptoms.
The patient's T score of 72 on this subscale indicates that he/she inconsistently responded to symptoms. The patient may have responded to the symptoms randomly, may have an inadequate reading level, or may have endorsed symptoms he or she does not experience.

Variable Item Inconsistency: (T) 72

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 11

SIM - Similar Item Inconsistency

The Similar Item Inconsistency subscale is composed of a series of item pairs that have similar content (either similar in content or statistically correlated). The score is based on the difference in responses given to items with similar content. The higher the score on this subscale, the more inconsistent the patient was when responding to the symptoms.
The patient's score on this subscale indicates that he/she consistently responded to items with similar content.

Similar Item Inconsistency: (T) 31

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 12

BAS - Basic Activity Interference

The Basic Activity Interference subscale measures the degree to which patients report being disabled from performing very basic and light physical activities. The higher the score above the normal range on this subscale, the more probable the patient's self reports of pain related activity limitation are invalid.
The Basic Activity Interference subscale measures the degree to which patients report being disabled from performing very basic and light physical activities. The higher the score above the normal range on this subscale, the more probable the patient's self reports of pain related activity limitation are invalid.

Basic Activity Interference: (T) 36

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 3

GEN - General Activity Interference

The General Activity Interference subscale measures the extent to which patients report being disabled from performing a range of different physical activities. The activities represented in this subscale are more complex and require greater strength than those represented in the Basic Activity Interference subscale.
The patient's T score of 18 on this subscale is below average compared to other pain patients. Scores of this magnitude are uncommon since pain patients are expected to endorse at least a moderate level of activity limitation. Patients scoring at this level often report psychological distress, and not activity limitation, as their greatest pain related difficulties. The patient may not be significantly impaired from performing his/her activities of daily living.

General Activity Interference: (T) 31

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 12

The Lack of Medical Comprehensiveness subscale was designed to measure the patient's perceived or reported inadequacy and comprehensiveness of treatment. This subscale was conceptually derived based on clinical impressions of deceptive strategies.
The patient's score on the Lack of Response to Treatment subscale is within the normal range for pain patients. This score suggests that the patient is as satisfied with the medical treatments he/she has received as most pain patients are.

Lack of Medical Comprehensiveness: (T) 47

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 3

The patient's scores on the Research scales are provided in this report but should be interpreted with caution. Scores on these subscales are proportions and are not norm referenced. Consequently, clinical judgment should be used when making inferences about the clinical significance of different scores or combinations of scores.
The minimum possible score on these scales is 0 while the maximum possible score is 100. The patient's score is based on his/her mean response to the items that make up the subscale. If the patient's mean level of agreement/disagreement is 3.5 (5 being the maximum possible mean if all items were endorsed with a value of 5), his/her score on the research scale would be (3.5 / 5) * 100 = 70.

The Pain Invariability subscale measures the degree of invariability in the intensity, frequency or duration of pain symptoms. It is generally believed that pain which is organically based fluctuates in intensity, frequency and duration, and that most pain patients will report such fluctuations. High scores indicate pain which is invariably intense.

Pain Invariability: (T) 0% agreement

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 3

The Instrumental Pain subscale was designed to measure the degree to which a patient's pain symptoms and complaints serve an instrumental function. For example, some patients may experience an exacerbation in pain symptoms whenever they anticipate having to visit their in-laws, yet not experience an exacerbation in pain when they anticipate having to visit their close friends, despite little if any difference in the anticipated physical demands. High scores indicate pain which is more instrumental.

Instrumental Pain: (T) 0% agreement

Number of unanswered items in subscale: 3

This section describes the patient's profile of scores compared to the normative sample. Two values were counted for making comparisons: 1)the total number of validity subscale scores that were at least 1 standard deviation from the mean in the clinically significant direction, and 2) the total number of standard deviations all validity subscales fall from the mean in the clinically significant direction.
The patient obtained 6 scores that were at least 1 standard deviation away from the mean in the clinically significant direction, and 4 scores that were at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean in the clinically significant direction.
The patient obtained more elevated scores than 97.3% of the normative sample. These results are significant. It is highly likely that the patient's self reports of pain and pain related activity limitation are invalid. Measures other than the patient's self reports of pain and pain related activity limitation should be considered when making treatment decisions for this patient. The patient's self reports of pain and pain related disability may not accurately reflect his/her true level of impairment.
The patient's scores were analyzed by counting the number of standard deviations each validity scale was away from the mean. The number of standard deviations were then summed to give the total Standard Deviation Score. Validity subscales that were more than 2 standard deviations away from the mean in the significant direction were counted as being 2 standard deviations from the mean since scores of this magnitude are statistically unreliable (only 2.28% of patients obtain scores greater than 2 standard deviation from the mean). This score provides a greater level of accuracy for comparing the magnitude of the patient's responses to the normative sample.
The patient obtained a Standard Deviation Score of 10. This score is higher than scores of 94.8% of the normative sample. These results are significant. It is highly likely that the patient's responses do not accurately reflect his/her true level of distress/disability.

This patient's profile is most consistent with a Minimizing response set. Statistically, this profile is characterized by elevated scores on the Minimizing, Defensiveness and Social Desirability subscales, and low scores on the Depression, Catastrophizing, Hypochondriasis, Atypical Symptoms, Frequent Symptoms and Maximizing subscales. The discriminant function correctly classified 91.8% of patients in this cluster. 7.9% of patients in this cluster were incorrectly classified as Neutral Responders, and 0.3% were incorrectly classified as Random Responders.