Treatment outcome in individuals with chronic pain: is the Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire (PSOCQ) a useful tool? Jenny StrongCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Kym Westburya, Glen Smithb, Ian McKenziec and William Ryan

The efficacy of psychological treatments emphasising a self-management approach to chronic pain has been demonstrated by substantial empirical research. Nevertheless, high drop-out and relapse rates and low or unsuccessful engagement in self-management pain rehabilitation programs have prompted the suggestion that people vary in their readiness to adopt a self-management approach to their pain. The Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire (PSOCQ) was developed to assess a patient's readiness to adopt a self-management approach to their chronic pain. Preliminary evidence has supported the PSOCQ's psychometric properties. The current study was designed to further examine the psychometric properties of the PSOCQ, including its reliability, factorial structure and predictive validity. A total of 107 patients with an average age of 36.2 years (SD = 10.63) attending a multi-disciplinary pain management program completed the PSOCQ, the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) and the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI) pre-admission and at discharge from the program. Initial data analysis found inadequate internal consistencies of the precontemplation and action scales of the PSOCQ and a high correlation (r = 0.66, P < 0.01) between the action and maintenance scales. Principal component analysis supported a two-factor structure: 'Contemplation' and 'Engagement'. Subsequent analyses revealed that the PSEQ was a better predictor of treatment outcome than the PSOCQ scales. Discussion centres upon the utility of the PSOCQ in a clinical pain setting in light of the above findings, and a need for further research. (C) 2002 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Amphitheater staging: In-the-round or to the front (and what about asides)?

When the existence in Utrecht of the DeWitt/Van Buchel drawing of the Swan Theater became known in 1888, William Poel was already seven years into his inquiries into the best means of staging the public amphitheater and great hall plays of the English Renaissance.1 I mention this to emphasize that the discourse came before the fact: the belief that Shakespeare's plays are best staged as it was then imprecisely imagined they had once been staged-simply, without elaborate settings or time-consuming scene changes, with direct actor-audience address, "in-the-round"-had as much to do with reactions against the late nineteenth-century stage's pictorialism, with its set-changing interruptions and cut-and-paste revisions to Shakespeare's texts, as it had to do with presenting the Bard "authentically." Some of the confusion caused by the uneasy mixing of historical scholarship and the assumptions and practices of our own contemporary theater profession can be glimpsed in the phenomenon of modern in-the-round staging, often claimed as a more "authentic" approach to Shakespeare in performance, but one which is then modified to make possible post-Stanislavsky acting methods and to satisfy modern audience expectations.