Search

The most widely accepted definition of pain considers it a sensory and emotional experience associated with potential or actual physical harm. However, research tends to generalize findings from predominantly European American samples thereby assuming universality across cultures. Because of the high prevalence of pain within the AI group, it is important to consider whether their conceptualization of pain is similar to the universal definition. To accomplish this aim, a semi-structured interview was conducted with 152 AIs (primarily Southern Plains and eastern Oklahoma tribes) and 150 NHWs. Both groups were asked questions including what words describe hurtful experiences, the purpose of painful experiences, individual and culture-specific meanings of pain, and what constituted the opposite of pain. Many similarities were found between groups as well as differences. For example, NHWs used the word pain more often to describe physically hurtful experiences and were more likely to consider pain to be a signal or warning of an abnormality or pathology. By contrast, only AIs reported culture-specific meanings of pain, such as references to AI rituals or ceremonies. These observed differences are attenuated by small effect sizes. These findings are important to consider when hypothesizing the differences in pain among cultural groups.

Jamie L Rhudy,1 Randolph C Arnau,2 Felicitas A Huber,1 Edward W Lannon,1 Bethany L Kuhn,1 Shreela Palit,1 Michael F Payne,1,3 Cassandra A Sturycz,1 Natalie Hellman,1 Yvette M Guereca,1 Tyler A Toledo,1 Joanna O Shadlow1 1The University of Tulsa, Department of Psychology, Tulsa, OK, USA; 2University of Southern Mississippi, Department of Psychology, Hattiesburg, MS, USA; 3Department of Pediatrics, Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USACorrespondence: Jamie L RhudyThe University of Tulsa, Department of Psychology, Tulsa, OK, USATel +1918 631-2839Fax +1918 631-2833Email jamie-rhudy@utulsa.eduIntroduction: Native Americans (NAs) have a higher prevalence of chronic pain than other US racial/ethnic groups, but the mechanisms contributing to this pain disparity are under-researched. Pain catastrophizing is oneof the most important psychosocial predictors of negative pain outcomes, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) has been established as a reliable and valid measure of the pain catastrophizing construct. However, before the PCS can be used to study pain risk in NAs, it is prudent to first determine whether the established 3-factor structure of the PCS also holds true for NAs.Methods: The current study examined the measurement (configural, metric, and scalar) invariance of the PCS in a healthy, pain-free sample of 138 NA and 144 non-Hispanic white (NHW) participants.Results: Results suggest that the previously established 3-factor solution fits for both groups (configural invariance) and that the factor loadings were equivalent across groups (metric invariance). Scalar invariance was also established, except for 1 minor scalar difference in a single threshold for item 3 (suggesting NHWs were more likely to respond with a 4 on that item than NAs).Discussion: Results provide additional evidence for the psychometric properties of the PCS and suggest it can be used to study pain catastrophizing in healthy, pain-free NA samples.Keywords: confirmatory factor analysis, pain catastrophizing, Native Americans, pain, ethnic differences, pain coping