The effect of the individual analyst on research findings can create a credibility problem for qualitative approaches from the perspective of evaluative criteria utilized in quantitative psychology. This paper explicates the ways in which objectivity and reliability are understood in qualitative analysis conducted from within three distinct epistemological frameworks: realism, contextual constructionism, and radical constructionism. It is argued that quality criteria utilized in quantitative psychology are appropriate to the evaluation of qualitative analysis only to the extent that it is conducted within a naive or scientific realist framework. The discussion is illustrated with reference to the comparison of two independent grounded theory analyses of identical material. An implication of this illustration is to identify the potential to develop a radical constructionist strand of grounded theory.

Numerous studies have found evidence for the role of catastrophizing about pain in adjustment to pain in both adults and children. However, the social context influencing pain and pain behaviour has been largely ignored. Especially in understanding the complexities of childhood pain, family processes may be of major importance. In line with the crucial role of pain catastrophizing in explaining adjustment and disability in adults and children, this study investigates the role of parental catastrophic thinking about their child's pain in explaining child disability and parental distress. To study parental catastrophizing, a parent version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-P) was developed. An oblique three-factor structure emerged to best fit the data in both a sample of parents of schoolchildren (N=205) and in a sample of parents of children with chronic pain (N=107). Moreover, this three-factor structure was found to be invariant across both parent samples. Further, in the clinical sample, parents' catastrophic thinking about their child's pain had a significant contribution in explaining (a) childhood illness-related parenting stress, parental depression and anxiety, and (b) the child's disability and school attendance, beyond the child's pain intensity.

Parents who are unable to achieve the relief of their adolescent's chronic pain and suffering report significant personal distress that is exemplified by the repetitive search for legitimacy of their child's pain in 'diagnosis'. In the absence of diagnosis parents reported an unwelcome suspension in an unusual pattern of parenting, resembling the infant phase of parenting.

Adolescents with chronic pain report disability, distress and reduced social functioning. A clinical sample of 110 adolescents, with a mean four year history of pain, was investigated for the psychosocial impact of pain on social development. All participants completed a range of self-report measures of pain intensity, disability, distress, social and family functioning. Also completed was the Bath Adolescent Pain Questionnaire, including its development subscale. The development subscale measures the extent to which adolescents perceive themselves to be ahead or behind their peers on 11 aspects of social development. Three related analyses were undertaken. First, over 50% of adolescents reported themselves to be less developed than their peers on four or more aspects. The item with the highest endorsement of being ahead compared with peers was "dealing with problems". Second, factor analyses revealed three factors of adolescent social development labelled 'independence', 'emotional adjustment' and 'identity formation'. Third, regression analyses revealed that peer support had a positive effect on all three factors, disability and anxiety had a negative effect on perceptions of independence, greater family dysfunction had a negative effect on emotional adjustment, and depressive mood had a negative effect on identity formation. Pain intensity had a negative effect on all three factors. Findings suggest that adolescents with chronic pain judge themselves to be less developed than their peers. Pain intensity has a negative effect on this perception, but peer relations may play a protective role: strong peer relationships are associated with positive social comparisons of the level of social development.