IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0231697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity of the cold pressor test and pain sensitivity questionnaire via online self-administration

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew H McIntyre
  • 23andMe Research Team
  • Achim Kless
  • Peter Hein
  • Mark Field
  • Joyce Y Tung

Abstract

To determine the feasibility of complex home-based phenotyping, 1,876 research participants from the customer base of 23andMe completed an online version of a Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) as well as a cold pressor test (CPT) which is used in clinical assessments of pain. Overall our online version of the PSQ performed similarly to the original pen-and-paper version. Construct validity of the PSQ total was demonstrated by internal consistency and consistent discrimination between more and less painful items. Criterion validity was demonstrated by correlation with pain sensitivity as measured by the CPT. Within the same cohort we performed a cold pressor test using a layperson description and household equipment. Comparison with published reports from controlled studies revealed similar distributions of cold pain tolerance times (i.e., time elapsed before removing the hand from the water). Of those who elected to participate in the CPT, a large majority of participants did not report issues with the test procedure or noncompliance with the instructions (97%). We confirmed a large sex difference in CPT thresholds in line with published data, such that women removed their hands from the water at a median of 54.2 seconds, with men lasting for a median time of 82.7 seconds (Kruskal-Wallis statistic, p

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew H McIntyre & 23andMe Research Team & Achim Kless & Peter Hein & Mark Field & Joyce Y Tung, 2020. "Validity of the cold pressor test and pain sensitivity questionnaire via online self-administration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231697
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231697
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231697&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0231697?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roi Treister & Oluwadolapo D Lawal & Jonathan D Shecter & Nevil Khurana & John Bothmer & Mark Field & Steven E Harte & Grant H Kruger & Nathaniel P Katz, 2018. "Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231697. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.