Gender differences in Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS) scores are validated by Profile of Mood States (POMS) scores in patients with cancer

Abstract

To evaluate the validity of gender differences demonstrated by the 101-item Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS), responses by 100 men and women with cancer to the MAPS were compared with their responses to the Profile of Mood States (POMS). The MAPS is based on a dendrogram obtained by cluster analysis of similarity judgments of somatosensory and emotional descriptors by healthy volunteers. The 30 MAPS clusters are grouped into three Superclusters: Somatosensory Pain, Emotional Pain, and Well-being. Scores for the 65-item unidimensional POMS are calculated for 6 factors: Tension-Anxiety, Depression-Dejection, Anger-Hostility, Vigor-Activity, Fatigue-Inertia, and Confusion-Bewilderment. (Only 58 of the 65 items are scored.) Overall, women scored in the more negative direction on 46 of the 58 (79%) POMS items (p<.001). Women scored significantly higher on a comparable 19 of the 26 (73%) MAPS Emotional Pain items (p<.03), in addition to 37 of the 57 (65%) Somatosensory Pain items (p<.04) and 65 of the 101 (64%) MAPS items overall (p<.003). Women scored significantly higher on the MAPS itemterrified (p<.03), as well as on the POMS itemstense (p<.02) and uneasy (p<.05); on the MAPS itemsupset (p<.04) andangry (p<.01), as well as the POMS items angry (p<.03)peeved (p<.04), and annoyed (p<.05); on the MAPSdepressed (p<.04) andguilty (p<.01), as well as on the POMSsad (p<.001) andguilty (p<.02). These data demonstrate that the MAPS can serve to adequately assess both the emotional as well as somatosensory domains of pain, detect gender differences, and provide a multidimensional assessment of pain without a typical lengthy battery of questionnaires. Supported by NIDCR 12725, the Fulbright Visiting Scholar Program, and the Nathaniel Wharton Fund for Research and Education in Mind, Body, and Behavior. To evaluate the validity of gender differences demonstrated by the 101-item Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS), responses by 100 men and women with cancer to the MAPS were compared with their responses to the Profile of Mood States (POMS). The MAPS is based on a dendrogram obtained by cluster analysis of similarity judgments of somatosensory and emotional descriptors by healthy volunteers. The 30 MAPS clusters are grouped into three Superclusters: Somatosensory Pain, Emotional Pain, and Well-being. Scores for the 65-item unidimensional POMS are calculated for 6 factors: Tension-Anxiety, Depression-Dejection, Anger-Hostility, Vigor-Activity, Fatigue-Inertia, and Confusion-Bewilderment. (Only 58 of the 65 items are scored.) Overall, women scored in the more negative direction on 46 of the 58 (79%) POMS items (p<.001). Women scored significantly higher on a comparable 19 of the 26 (73%) MAPS Emotional Pain items (p<.03), in addition to 37 of the 57 (65%) Somatosensory Pain items (p<.04) and 65 of the 101 (64%) MAPS items overall (p<.003). Women scored significantly higher on the MAPS itemterrified (p<.03), as well as on the POMS itemstense (p<.02) and uneasy (p<.05); on the MAPS itemsupset (p<.04) andangry (p<.01), as well as the POMS items angry (p<.03)peeved (p<.04), and annoyed (p<.05); on the MAPSdepressed (p<.04) andguilty (p<.01), as well as on the POMSsad (p<.001) andguilty (p<.02). These data demonstrate that the MAPS can serve to adequately assess both the emotional as well as somatosensory domains of pain, detect gender differences, and provide a multidimensional assessment of pain without a typical lengthy battery of questionnaires. Supported by NIDCR 12725, the Fulbright Visiting Scholar Program, and the Nathaniel Wharton Fund for Research and Education in Mind, Body, and Behavior.