Psychometric Properties of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory Applied to Brazilian Patients with Orofacial Pain

Aims: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) in a Brazilian sample of patients with orofacial pain. Methods: A total of 1,925 adult patients, who sought dental care in the School of Dentistry of São Paulo State University’s Araraquara campus, were invited to participate; 62.5% (n = 1,203) agreed to participate. Of these, 436 presented with orofacial pain and were included. The mean age was 39.9 (SD = 13.6) years and 74.5% were female. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using χ2/df, comparative fit index, goodness of fit index, and root mean square error of approximation as indices of goodness of fit. Convergent validity was estimated by the average variance extracted and composite reliability, and internal consistency by Cronbach’s alpha standardized coefficient (α). The stability of the models was tested in independent samples (test and validation; dental pain and orofacial pain). The factorial invariance was estimated by multigroup analysis (Δχ2). Results: Factorial, convergent validity and internal consistency were adequate in all three parts of the MPI. To achieve this adequate fit for Part 1, item 15 needed to be deleted (λ = 0.13). Discriminant validity was compromised between the factors “activities outside the home” and “social activities” of Part 3 of the MPI in the total sample, validation sample, and in patients with dental pain and with orofacial pain. A strong invariance between different subsamples from the three parts of the MPI was detected. Conclusion: The MPI produced valid, reliable, and stable data for pain assessment among Brazilian patients with orofacial pain.

facial pain; pain measurement; psychometrics; validation studies

1. Merskey H, Bogduk N (eds). Part III: Pain Terms, A Current List with Definitions and Notes on Usage. In: Classification of Chronic Pain, ed 2. Seattle: IASP, 1994: 209–214.

2. Loeser JD, Treede RD. The Kyoto protocol of IASP Basic Pain Terminology. Pain 2008;137:473–477.

3. Audreu Y, Galdon MJ, Durá E, et al. An examination of the psychometric structure of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory in temporomandibular disorder patients: A confirmatory factor analysis. Head Face Med 2006;14:1–9.

4. Fordyce WE. Behavioural science and chronic pain. Postgrad Med J 1984;60:865–868.

5. Kerns RD, Turk DC, Rudy TE. The West Haven-Yale multidimensional pain inventory (WHYMPI). Pain 1985;23:345–356.

6. Widar M, Ahlström G. Disability after a stroke and the influence of long-term pain on everyday life. Scand J Caring Sci 2002;16:302–310.

7. Miotto MH, Silotti JC, Barcellos LA. Dental pain as the motive for absenteeism in a sample of workers [in Portuguese]. CienSaude Colet 2012;17:1357–1363.

8. Daut RL, Cleeland CS. The prevalence and severity of pain in cancer. Cancer 1982;50:1913–1918.

9. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods. Pain 1975;1:277–299.

10. Deisinger JA, Cassisi JE, Lofland KR, Cole P, Bruehl S. An examination of the psychometric structure of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory. J Clin Psychol 2001;57:765–783.

11. Ferrari R, Novara C, Sanavio E, Zerbini F. Internal Structure and Validity of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory, Italian Language Version. Pain Med 2000;1:123–130.

12. Magnusson JE, Becker WJ. Migraine frequency and intensity: Relationship with disability and psychological factors. Headache 2003;43:1049–1059.

13. Silva JA, Ribeiro-Filho NP. Avaliação e Mensuração de Dor -Pesquisa, Teoria e Prática. Ribeirão Preto: Funpec, 2006.

14. Lousberg R, Van Breukelen GJ, Groenman NH, Schmidt AJ, Arntz A, Winter FA. Psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory, Dutch language version (MPI-DLV). Behav Res Therapy 1999;37:167–182.

15. Soler MD, Cruz-Almeida Y, Saurí J, Widerström-Noga EG. Psychometric evaluation of the Spanish version of the MPI-SCI. Spinal Cord 2013;51:538–552.

16. Bergström G, Jensen IB, Bodin L, Linton SJ, Nygren AL, Carlsson SG. Reliability and factor structure of the MultidimensionalPain Inventory - Swedish language version (MPI-S). Pain 1998;75:101–110.

17. ABEP. Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa. Critério de Classificação Econômica Brasil - 2008. 2008.

18. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press, 1998.

19. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate Data Analysis: Prentice Hall, 2005.

20. Mardia KV. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika 1970;57:519–530.

21. Lawshe C. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology 1975;28(4):563-575.

22. Wilson FR, Pan W, Schumsky DA. Recalculation of the Critical Values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev 2012;45:197–210.

23. Cheung MWL. Implementing restricted maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation models. Struct Equ Modeling 2013;20:157–167.

24. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res 1981;18:39–50.