Catastrophizing research - Avoiding conceptual errors and maintaining a balanced perspective

This Commentary addresses some common conceptual errors and methodological issues raised by the Focus article by Geisser, Robinson, and Riley. One conceptual error, the problem of confounding coping with outcome, is evident in their assertion that catastrophizing is not a form of coping, but rather a maladaptive pain belief. Catastrophizing clearly fits current definitions of coping, even though it may be associated with negative outcomes. A second conceptual error is the tendency to oversimplify the coping process that is evident in the tendency to divide coping strategies into dichotomous categories leg, active vs passive, adaptive vs maladaptive. Methodological issues raised by this article include: (1) the need to recognize the strengths of existing pain coping instruments (eg, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire), and (2) the utility of new and alternative coping measures. This Commentary concludes with a discussion of important directions for future research on pain coping.