The Physical Symptom Scale-8: Psychometric Characteristics of a Short-Form Version of the PHQ-15 and its Use in TMD-Related Assessment and Research

Aims: To describe the development of the Physical Symptom Scale-8 (PSS-8) and to examine its psychometric properties and use in temporomandibular disorder (TMD)–related assessment and research. Methods: An online survey comprising demographic variables, the DC/TMD pain screener (TPS), Short-Form Fonseca Anamnestic Index (SFAI), PSS-8, PHQ-15, and Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) was administered to young adults attending a technical college. The PSS-8 adopted the Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8) items but maintained the 3-point response scale and 4-week time frame of the PHQ-15. Internal consistency and reliability of the PSS-8 were determined by its Cronbach α value. Known-groups and concurrent/convergent validity were examined using Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation (α = .05), respectively. Results: Responses from 400 participants (mean age 18.8 ± 1.5 years; 52.3% women) were evaluated. Pain-related (WPT) and all (WAT) TMDs were present in 8.5% and 17.3% of the sample, respectively. The PSS-8 exhibited good internal consistency (α = 0.82) and sound known-groups validity, with the WPT/WAT groups having significantly higher PSS-8 scores than those without TMDs. Good concurrent and convergent validity were also observed, with moderate to strong correlations with the PHQ-15 (rs = 0.97) and DASS-21 scores (rs = 0.48 to 0.60). Correlations with the TPS and SFAI scores were weaker (rs = 0.28 to 0.34). Conclusion: The PSS-8 presented good psychometric properties and performed similarly to the PHQ-15. It holds promise as the “de facto” shortened version of the PHQ-15 for TMDs and related work.

pain measurement; reliability and validity; reproducibility of results; somatic symptoms; temporomandibular joint disorders

1. List T, Jensen RH. Temporomandibular disorders: Old ideas and new concepts. Cephalalgia 2017;37:692–704.

2. Manfredini D, Guarda-Nardini L, Winocur E, Piccotti F, Ahlberg J, Lobbezoo F. Research diagnostic criteria for temporoman-dibular disorders: A systematic review of axis I epidemiologic findings. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112:453–462.

3. Ryan J, Akhter R, Hassan N, Hilton G, Wickham J, Ibaragi S. Epidemiology of temporomandibular disorder in the general population: A systematic review. Adv Dent Oral Health 2019;10:555787.

4. Warren MP, Fried JL. Temporomandibular disorders and hormones in women. Cells Tissues Organs 2001;169:187–192.

5. Slade GD, Fillingim RB, Sanders AE, et al. Summary of findings from the OPPERA prospective cohort study of incidence of first-onset temporomandibular disorder: Implications and future directions. J Pain 2013;14(12 suppl):T116–T124.

6. Chisnoiu AM, Picos AM, Popa S, et al. Factors involved in the etiology of temporomandibular disorders—A literature review. Clujul Med 2015;88:473–478.

7. Yap AU, Zhang M-J, Cao Y, Lei J, Fu K-Y. Comparison of psychological states and oral health-related quality of life of pa-tients with differing severity of temporomandibular disorders. J Oral Rehabil 2022;49:177–185.

8. De la Torre Canales G, Câmara-Souza MB, Muñoz Lora VRM, et al. Prevalence of psychosocial impairment in temporoman-dibular disorder patients: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2018;45:881–889.

9. Fantoni F, Salvetti G, Manfredini D, Bosco M. Current concepts on the functional somatic syndromes and temporomandibular disorders. Stomatologija 2007;9:3–9.

10. Robinson LJ, Durham J, Newton JL. A systematic review of the comorbidity between temporomandibular disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome. J Oral Rehabil 2016;43:306–316.

11. Ayouni I, Chebbi R, Hela Z, Dhidah M. Comorbidity between fibromyalgia and temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019;128:33–42.

12. Lipowski ZJ. Somatization: The concept and its clinical application. Am J Psychiatry 1988;145:1358–1368.

13. Choi E, Chentsova-Dutton Y, Parrott WG. The effectiveness of somatization in communicating distress in Korean and American cultural contexts. Front Psychol 2016;7:383.

14. Dreher A, Hahn E, Diefenbacher A, et al. Cultural differences in symptom representation for depression and somatization mea-sured by the PHQ between Vietnamese and German psychiatric outpatients. J Psychosom Res 2017;102:71–77.

15. Grover S, Ghosh A. Somatic symptom and related disorders in Asians and Asian Americans. Asian J Psychiatr 2014;7:77–79.

16. Yap AU, Sultana R, Natu VP. Somatic and temporomandibular disorder symptoms—Idioms of psychological distress in Southeast Asian youths. Cranio 2021;1–8.

17. Cork C, Kaiser BN, White RG. The integration of idioms of distress into mental health assessments and interventions: A systematic review. Glob Ment Health (Camb) 2019;6:e7.

18. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-15: Validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med 2002;64:258–266.

19. Zijlema WL, Stolk RP, Löwe B, et al. How to assess common somatic symptoms in large-scale studies: A systematic review of questionnaires. J Psychosom Res 2013;74:459–468.

20. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Löwe B. The patient health questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: A systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2010;32:345–359.

21. Oyama O, Paltoo C, Greengold J. Somatoform disorders. Am Fam Physician 2007;76:1333–1338.

22. Schiffman E, Ohrbach R, Truelove E, et al. Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for clinical and research applications: Recommendations of the international RDC/TMD consortium network and orofacial pain special interest group. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 2014;28:6–27.

23. Sahlqvist S, Song Y, Bull F, et al. Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: Randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:62.

24. Rolstad S, Adler J, Rydén A. Response burden and question-naire length: Is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health 2011;14:1101–1108.

25. Gierk B, Kohlmann S, Kroenke K, et al. The somatic symptom scale-8 (SSS-8): A brief measure of somatic symptom burden. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:399–407.

26. Narrow WE, Clarke DE, Kuramoto SJ, et al. DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part III: Development and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment for DSM-5. Am J Psychiatry 2013;170:71–82.

27. Gonzalez YM, Schiffman E, Gordon SM, et al. Development of a brief and effective temporomandibular disorder pain screening questionnaire: Reliability and validity. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142:1183–1191.

28. Pires PF, de Castro EM, Pelai EB, de Arruda ABC, Rodrigues-Bigaton D. Analysis of the accuracy and reliability of the Short-Form Fonseca Anamnestic Index in the diagnosis of myogenous temporomandibular disorder in women. Braz J Phys Ther 2018;22:276–282.

29. Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales, ed 2. Psychology Foundation of Australia,1995.

30. Yap AU, Zhang M-J, Lei J, Fu K-Y. Diagnostic accuracy of the short-form Fonseca anamnestic index in relation to the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:977–983.

31. Rodrigues-Bigaton D, de Castro EM, Pires PF. Factor and Rasch analysis of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index for the diag-nosis of myogenous temporomandibular disorder. Braz J Phys Ther 2017;21:120–126.

32. Lee J, Lee E-H, Moon SH. Systematic review of the measurement properties of the depression anxiety stress scales-21 by applying updated COSMIN methodology. Qual Life Res 2019;28:2325–2339.

33. Henry JD, Crawford JR. The short-form version of the depres-

sion anxiety stress scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 2005;44:227–239.

34. Cunha CM, de Almeida Neto OP, Stackfleth R. Principais métodos de avaliação psicométrica da confiabilidade de instrumentos de medida [in Portuguese]. Rev Aten Saúde 2016;14:98–103.

35. Dancey CP, Reidy J. Statistics Without Maths for Psychology, ed 7. London: Pearson; 2017.

36. Peixoto KO, de Resende CMBM, de Almeida EO, et al. Association of sleep quality and psychological aspects with reports of bruxism and TMD in Brazilian dentists during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Appl Oral Sci 2021;29:e20201089.

37. Johnson KA, Gordon CJ, Grunstein RR. Somatic symptoms are associated with insomnia disorder but not obstructive sleep apnoea or hypersomnolence in traumatic brain injury. NeuroRehabilitation 2019;45:409–418.

38. Zanon C, Brenner RE, Baptista MN, et al. Examining the dimensionality, reliability, and invariance of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) across eight countries. Assessment 2021;28:1531–1544.

39. Fillingim RB, Ohrbach R, Greenspan JD, et al. Psychological factors associated with development of TMD: The OPPERA prospective cohort study. J Pain 2013;14(12 suppl):T75–T90.

40. Stauder A, Witthöft M, Köteles F. Validation of the Hungarian PHQ-15. A latent variable approach. Ideggyogy Sz 2021;74:183–190.

41. Zhang L, Fritzsche K, Liu Y, et al. Validation of the Chinese version of the PHQ-15 in a tertiary hospital. BMC Psychiatry 2016;16:89.

42. Tietjen GE, Brandes JL, Digre KB, et al. High prevalence of somatic symptoms and depression in women with disabling chronic headache. Neurology 2007;68:134–140.

43. Toussaint A, Kroenke K, Baye F, Lourens S. Comparing the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 and the Somatic Symptom Scale-8 as measures of somatic symptom burden. J Psychosom Res 2017;101:44–50.

44. Turner AI, Smyth N, Hall SJ, et al. Psychological stress reactivity and future health and disease outcomes: A systematic review of prospective evidence. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2020;114:104599.

45. Fincham JE. Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the journal. Am J Pharm Educ 2008;72:43.

46. Morton SMB, Bandara DK, Robinson EM, Carr PEA. In the 21st century, what is an acceptable response rate? Aust N Z J Public Health 2012;36:106–108.

47. Althubaiti A. Information bias in health research: Definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc 2016;9:211–217.