Personality Characteristics of Women with Fibromyalgia and of Women with Chronic Neck, Shoulder, or Low Back Complaints in Terms of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Defense Mechanism Technique Modified

Abstract

Objectives: To compare personality features of fibro-myalgia patients with those of a disease control group with regional pain.Methods: A group of 33 women with fibromyalgia [FMS-group] was compared on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI] and the Defense Mechanism Technique modified [DMTm] with 31 women [C-group] without this diagnosis who had localized chronic pain in their neck, shoulder, and/or low back areas and were very similar in chronological age, intelligence, and basic personality patterns.Results: As hypothesized the FMS-group scored higher than the C-group on the MMPI-scales of Hypochondriasis, Depression, and Hysteria. They also scored higher on Admission of symptoms, Psych-asthenia, Anxiety, Schizophrenia, Social introversion, and a number of nonclinical subscales. The differences were not found to be due to differences in pain intensity. The only statistically significant difference in DMTm between the groups was that of FMS patients more often reporting the projected self to be positive and/or to be afraid, suggesting them to be more vulnerable than the comparison group to threatening experiences. Significant relationships between the disability level and the number of tender points, group membership, pain intensity, and various of the MMPI scales were found.Conclusions: There were no signs on the MMPI of serious psychological disturbances in either group, and at the “deeper” psychological level, assessed in DMTm, there were no marked differences between the two groups, a proneness to somaticize psychological pain being found in both groups. Both the MMPI and the DMTm results were interpreted as suggesting that a cognitive coping strategy program be considered for rehabilitation. The fact that both different symptoms and signs had importance when regressing disability might indicate that univariate approaches is not sufficient when investigating factors of importance for disability.