Presented at the 2013 AAPM Annual Meeting « Back

Pain Tolerance: A Normative Study

John M. Disorbio, EdD, jmdisorbio@earthlink.net¹, Daniel Bruns, PsyD², dbruns@healthpsych.com, Dawn M. Jewell, PsyD², Alexander Bruns², (1) APA, Evergreen, Colorado, (2) Health Psychology Associates, Greeley, Colorado

Objective: The Pain Tolerance Index (PTI) was previously conceptualized as a means of determining the degree to which pain is tolerable. The purpose of this study was to determine the norms and reliability of this measure. Methods: Data from 2264 subjects (777 patients with pain/injury, and 1487 community members) were gathered with IRB approval, and were subdivided for further analyses. An additional 82 patients were retested after one week to assess test-retest reliability. All subjects completed the Battery For Health Improvement 2 (BHI 2) test. Using this test, PTI was defined as patients' perception of the maximum pain that could be tolerated and still work, from which was subtracted the highest of all BHI 2 pain reports (Figure 1). PTI scores ranged from -10 to +10, with higher numbers suggesting greater pain tolerance. PTI norms for various groups were developed. Results: The N, mean and standard deviation of PTI scores were in descending order: Community non-patients without pain (129/1.29/3.573), community norms (725/-.69/3.537), acute pain (326/-2.96/3.365), patient norms (527/-4.10/3.332), head injury (115/-4.10/3.440), back injury (422/-4.30/329), arm/hand injury (236/-4.56/3.238), worker’s compensation (264/-5.07/2.877), litigants (226/-5.24/3.034), and chronic pain (341/-5.37/2.955). PTI reliability was .92. Conclusion: The establishment of norms and reliability for PTI make it a potential benchmark of pain tolerance. References: 1) Bruns D, Disorbio JM. Battery for Health Improvement 2. Minneapolis: Pearson; 2003.

Funding: None

Figure: