Validation of the Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS)

The concurrent construct validity of the Multidimensional Affect and Pain Survey (MAPS) was determined in a sample of 100 oncology outpatients. As recommended by Jensen, we examined the frequency pattern of correlations between MAPS and standard questionnaires that reached a criterion level of significance. As predicted, the 17 subclusters in the MAPS Somatosensory Pain supercluster showed a higher mean frequency of criterion correlations with the 4 sensory-related groups of items from the MPQ and, equally important, a lower frequency of criterion correlations with unrelated constructs, POMS, and the MPQ Affective Class. The 8 subclusters in the MAPS Emotional Pain supercluster revealed a high frequency of correlations with related POMS and FACT-G scales and (negatively) with the KPS score; equally important, there were far fewer criterion correlations of these scales with unrelated MPQ sensory classes. The 5 subclusters of the MAPS Well-Being supercluster showed a high frequency of criterion correlations with the POMS Vigor/Activity Scale, related FACT-G scales, and the KPS score and lower frequencies of correlation with the unrelated MPQ sensory groups. In conclusion, the 101-item MAPS yields more information about a patient’s pain, emotional, physical, and cognitive status than does a much longer test battery consisting of 191 items contained in the MPQ, POMS, and FACT-G questionnaires.PerspectiveThis study demonstrates the validity of a new pain questionnaire developed objectively by multivariate cluster analysis rather than subjectively by expert opinion. MAPS assesses patients’ somatosensory and emotional experiences, and feelings of well-being with greater scope and accuracy than a battery of questionaires, and it does so in much less time.