Intest Res Search


Intest Res > Volume 18(4); 2020 > Article
Bouchoucha, Devroede, Girault-Lidvan, Hejnar, Mary, and Benamouzig: Psychological profiles of irritable bowel syndrome patients with different phenotypes



Abnormal psychological profiles are frequently found in patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs). The present study aimed to evaluate the psychological profiles of FGID patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and IBS phenotypes.


In 608 FGID patients, including 235 with IBS, have filled a Rome III questionnaire and the French version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2. Data analysis was performed using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.


This study shows that IBS patients have abnormal psychological profiles with more significant symptom exaggeration and decreased test defensiveness than non-IBS patients. They have a significantly higher score for all clinical scales. Logistic regression analysis showed in IBS patients a decrease of body mass index (P= 0.002), and test defensiveness score K (P= 0.001) and an increase of Hypochondriasis (P< 0.001) and Masculinity-Femininity scale (P= 0.018). By comparison with non-IBS patients, IBS-constipation, IBS-diarrhea, and mixed IBS patients have increased Hypochondriasis value and Depression score, mixed IBS patients have higher Psychasthenia score and higher Hypomania score. No item was significantly different in the IBS-unspecified group.


This study shows that IBS patients have different psychological profiles than other FGID patients and that psychological characteristics are associated with IBS phenotypes except for patients with unsubtyped IBS.


Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional bowel disorder defined by the presence of chronic or recurring symptoms that include abdominal pain and discomfort (for Rome III criteria [1], but not for Rome IV criteria [2]), flatulence, bloating, and altered bowel habits [1]. IBS is a disorder of unknown etiology; there are no known biochemical, structural, or physiological abnormalities to characterize IBS. The prevalence of IBS in Western populations is estimated to be between 5% and 20% [3]. Sex ratio, frequencies of abnormal transit or defecation disorders, association to dyspepsia vary strongly according to different countries [3].
In order to test adult personality, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is the most widely used psychometric test [4]. The psychological profile of many patients with digestive disorders was previously assessed with this test [5-7]. The MMPI-2, a significant revision of the MMPI, standardized on a national sample of U.S. adults [8], introduced a wide variety of subscales to help clinicians in the interpretation of the results of the original clinical scales.
To understanding illness and human health in their entire contexts, the biopsychosocial approach [9] was proposed and used to analyze functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) such as IBS in the Rome III presentation [10]. In this hypothesis, IBS results from dysfunction of the enteric and central nervous system, which is manifested as dysmotility and/or visceral hypersensitivity and is modified by psychosocial processes. In this multicausal pathology, biological and psychological factors interact to determine the disease activity and experience of illness. IBS symptoms can be associated with psychological co-morbidities: anxiety disorders, depression, somatoform disorders, and phobic disorders [11]. This psychological profile explains an exaggerated intestinal pain and emotional distress [12].
Nevertheless, most of these studies do not use the Rome criteria [13], and MMPI was never used to characterize IBS subtypes as defined by the Rome III criteria. IBS is a clinically defined disorder without physiopathologic processes [14]. We hypothesize that different IBS subtypes are associated with different personality profiles. The present study aims to evaluate the psychological profile of IBS and IBS subtypes in a cohort of outpatients consulting for FGID in a tertiary center by using a normalized psychometric test, the MMPI-2.


1. Subjects

Between September 2010 and December 2014, 1,293 outpatients were consecutively referred by gastroenterologists to our Center for Functional GI and Motility Disorders in the Gastroenterology Clinic of the Avicenne Hospital, a tertiary center for FGID management. A full clinical evaluation, including morphological (endoscopy or radiology) and the exclusion of metabolic, endocrinologic, and neurologic etiologies, failed to yield an organic cause for their complaint. The use of narcotics and previous surgery of the gastrointestinal tract were exclusion criteria. A single investigator (M.B.) independently confirmed the validity of the initial FGID diagnosis.
We ask the patients that have not initially filled in the MMPI questionnaire to do so at the second clinical visit. In toto, 608 patients (69% female), aged 44.5 ± 17.0 years (mean ± standard deviation [SD]), body mass index (BMI) 26.5 ± 6.0 kg/m², filled in the personality questionnaire and a standard Rome III adult diagnosis questionnaire.

2. Methods

Following the French legislation, this study was registered in the French National Agency for drug safety (decision number: 2015-A01661-48). We perform the present study according to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed written consent was obtained from each patient.

3. Study Design

The design of the present study is a retrospective observational study.

4. Clinical Questionnaire

Patients in the gastroenterologist’s office filled out a standard Rome III adult diagnosis questionnaire for FGIDs [15].
For functional bowel disorders, the diagnosis of IBS was based on the report of recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort at least 3 days per month in the last 3 months associated with 2 or more of the following: improvement with defecation, beginning associated with a change in frequency of stool, or with a change in form (appearance) of stool. Subtypes of IBS (IBS with constipation [IBS-C], IBS with diarrhea [IBS-D], mixed IBS [IBS-M], and unsubtyped IBS [IBS-U]) were defined according to the Rome III criteria [1]. In the absence of IBS, the diagnosis of other functional bowel disorders (bloating, constipation, diarrhea, and unspecified) was made. Finally, nonspecific bowel disorders were diagnosed by exclusion when bowel disorders were present but did not meet the criteria mentioned above.
Functional esophageal [16] (heartburn, chest pain, dysphagia, globus), gastroduodenal [17] (dyspepsia, postprandial distress syndrome, epigastric pain syndrome, aerophagia), anorectal [18] (fecal incontinence, anorectal pain, including levator ani syndrome proctalgia fugax, difficult defecation), disorders and abdominal pain [19] were diagnosed according to the Rome III criteria.

5. Psychological Profiles

We used the MMPI-2 to assess the psychological profile as previously described [20]. The individual raw MMPI-2 score was converted to a T-scale score (mean ± SD, 50 ± 10), which is age and sex-adjusted to the healthy controls [21]. Briefly, for each subject, the MMPI-2 is scored by 6 validity scales namely L, F, Fb, K, true response inconsistency (TRIN), and variable response inconsistency (VRIN), and 10 clinical scales namely 1-Hypochondriasis, 2-Depression, 3-Hysteria, 4-Psychopathic deviate, 5-Masculinity-Femininity, 6-Paranoia, 7-Psychasthenia, 8-Schizophrenia, 9-Hypomania, and 10-Social introversion. Sixty other items, also calculated, are described in the Supplementary Text.

6. Statistical Analysis

We used IBM SPSS software version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) to carry statistical analyses and express the results for quantitative parameters as mean ± SD. Differences among the groups were searched by one-way analysis of variance using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons with post hoc tests. Analysis of qualitative variables was used chi-square tests.
Logistic regression was used for data analysis that systematically included IBS as the dependent variable and as independent variables, BMI, and the validity and clinical MMPI-2 scales. For the analysis of the psychological characteristics of the IBS subtypes, 2 multinomial logistic regression models, adjusted for BMI, with the non-IBS and the unspecified IBS subtype used as reference groups, were created for each group. The backward selection was used for model selection during all multivariate logistic regression. Statistically significant variables (P< 0.05) remained in the adjusted model.


1. Patients Characteristics

The Rome questionnaire divided the 608 FGIDs patients into 235 IBS patients (39%; 77 for IBS-C, 68 for IBS-D, 54 for IBS-M, 36 for IBS-U) and 373 non-IBS patients (61%) (Table 1). IBS and non-IBS patients have similar age and sex ratio, but nonIBS patients have higher BMI than IBS patients (P< 0.001). Among the 4 IBS subtypes, IBS-C patients are more frequently of female sex than IBS-M patients (P= 0.003) and have lower BMI than IBS-D (P= 0.002) and IBS-U (P= 0.002) patients. The univariate analysis shows that IBS patients report a higher prevalence of chest pain (P< 0.001), dysphagia (P= 0.004), postprandial distress syndrome (P< 0.001), nonspecific dyspepsia (P< 0.001), aerophagia (P< 0.001), and levator ani syndrome (P= 0.004).

2. Psychological Characteristics of IBS Patients

IBS patients show higher symptom exaggeration than non-IBS patients (P< 0.001) and decreased test defensiveness score (P< 0.001) (Table 2, Supplementary Table 1). IBS patients have a significantly higher score for all clinical scales: Hypochondriasis (P< 0.001), Depression (P< 0.001), Hysteria (P< 0.001), Psychopathic deviate (P= 0.005), Masculinity-Femininity (P< 0.001), Paranoia (P< 0.001), Psychasthenia (P< 0.001), Schizophrenia (P< 0.001), Hypomania (P= 0.005) and Social introversion (P= 0.042). The results of the content, supplementary and Harris-Lingoes scales for IBS and non-IBS patients are shown in the Supplementary Text.
As shown in Fig. 1, the multivariate logistic regression found that IBS group is characterized by decreased BMI (P= 0.002; odds ratio [OR], 0.957; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.930-0.984), decreased test defensiveness score (P= 0.001; OR, 0.972; 95% CI, 0.955-0.989) and increased scales for Hypochondriasis (P< 0.001; OR, 1.049; 95% CI, 1.035-1.064) and Masculinity-Femininity (P= 0.018; OR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.003-1.037).
The frequency of abnormal clinical scales is shown in the Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 and analyzed in the Supplementary Text.

3. Demographics and Psychological Characteristics of IBS Subtypes Patients

By comparison with non-IBS patients (Table 3, Supplementary Table 4), IBS-C patients have a more frequently female sex (P< 0.01) and a lower BMI (P< 0.001) while IBS-M patients have lower BMI (P= 0.014).
Among the IBS patients, IBS subgroups show a significant difference for one validity scale, Infrequency scale with the highest value for the IBS-M group (P< 0.001 vs. non-IBS patients and P= 0.040 vs. IBS-C patients) and 4 clinical scales: Hypochondriasis, Depression, Psychasthenia, and Hypomania. The differences of the content, supplementary, and HarrisLingoes scales are shown in the Supplementary Table 3 and described in the Supplementary Text.
By comparison with non-IBS patients, IBS-C, IBS-D, and IBSM patients have increased Hypochondriasis (P< 0.001 for these 3 groups), increased Depression (P= 0.013 for IBS-C, P= 0.005 for IBS-D, and P< 0.001 for IBS-M), IBS-M patient have higher Psychasthenia (P< 0.001) and higher Hypomania (P= 0.004). No item was significantly different in the IBS-U group.
The multinomial logistic regression shows that, by comparison with the non-IBS patients (Fig. 2), IBS-C patients have lower BMI (P< 0.001; OR, 0.911; 95% CI, 0.869-0.954) and increased value for Hypochondriasis (P= 0.001; OR, 1.058; 95% CI, 1.022-1.095) and Masculinity-Femininity scale (P= 0.034; OR, 1.028; 95% CI, 1.002-1.055), the IBS-D patients have increased Hysteria score (P= 0.003; OR, 1.059; 95% CI, 1.020-1.099) and the IBS-M patients have decreased BMI (P= 0.005; OR, 0.922; 95% CI, 0.871-0.976), decreased test defensiveness score (P =0.036; OR, 0.946; 95% CI, 0.898-0.996) and increased Hypochondriasis scale (P= 0.008; OR, 1.058; 95% CI, 1.015-1.103). In contrast, no significant association was found with the IBS-U group.
By comparison to IBS-U patients, the multinomial logistic regression shows that IBS-C patients gave increased Depression score (P= 0.011; OR, 1.095; 95% CI, 1.021-1.174) and decreased BMI (P= 0.018; OR, 0.909; 95% CI, 0.839-0.983), the IBS-M patients have only decreased BMI (P= 0.030; OR, 0.909; 95% CI, 0.835-0.991) while the IBS-D patients were not significantly different.
The frequency of abnormal values is shown in Supplementary Tables 5 and 6 and analyzed in the Supplementary Text. Briefly, the multinomial logistic regression shows that, as compared to the non-IBS patients, only IBS-C and IBS-M patients are associated with an increased frequency of abnormal Hypochondriasis score: for IBS-C patients (P= 0.001; OR, 2.958; 95% CI, 1.603-5.458), and IBS-M patients (P= 0.003; OR, 3.245; 95% CI, 1.489-7.070).


This study confirms the existence of significant psychological characteristics in IBS patients. They have higher symptom exaggeration than non-IBS patients (P< 0.001), and higher score for all clinical scales. Also, psychological characteristics associated with IBS phenotypes, except IBS-U, were found. By comparison with the non-IBS patients, IBS-C patients have a higher score for Hypochondriasis and Masculinity-Femininity scale, IBS-D patients have a higher score for Hysteria, and the IBS-M patients have decreased test defensiveness score and increased Hypochondriasis scale. By comparison to IBS-U patients, IBS-C patients reported a higher score of Depression.
We used a French validated translation of the MMII 2. This 567 items-test usually takes between 1 and 2 hours to complete depending on the reading level. To avoid any bias, we excluded from the study patients unable to respond to the entire test (5% of FGIDs patients) and patients with organic diseases. Data are based on the other 608 patients.
The MMPI has been commonly used to assess medical patients (chronic pain [22], chronic pelvic pain [23], premenstrual symptoms [24]) and to explore patients with digestive disorders of known (inflammatory bowel disease), or of unknown origin: dyspepsia [25], nutcracker esophagus [26], slow transit constipation [7], or IBS [27-30].
In previous clinical studies, IBS patients were compared to healthy controls 28 or in patients with extra digestive pain [7]. The present study uses other FGIDs patients as the control group for 2 reasons. First, MMPI scales used are T scores with a known distribution in the healthy population (mean ± SD, 50 ± 10), according to the gender and age; second, other FGID patients suffer from another chronic digestive disorder. The main superiority of the MMPI on other psychological tests is the presence of validity scales to validate the questionnaires [31]. Nevertheless, the high correlation between the MMPI clinical scales limits the power of this test [32]. The improved version of the MMPI, the MMPI-3, which has a slightly different item pool, could correct this limitation.
The MMPI-2 uses 6 validity scales, but the Infrequency scale is significantly different between IBS patients and non-IBS patients. The F scale, defined by 60 items of the MMPI-2 test, is used to identify attempts at “faking good” or “faking bad.” High scores on this item characterize people that are trying to appear better or worse than they are. F score is higher in IBS patients than in non-IBS patients. Abnormal F score is found more often in IBS patients than non-IBS patients (n = 22 [17.6%] vs. n = 17 [7.7%]; P= 0.009), but there is no difference among the IBS subgroups (P= 0.670).
The other validity scales were not different between IBS and non-IBS patients (Table 2). The L scale was developed to detect patients that positively present themselves. Despite the mean L scores are higher than the normal range (45-55), this score was not different between IBS and non-IBS patients, nor between the different IBS phenotypes. L scores between 56 and 64, indicative of individuals who have a tendency to resort to denial mechanisms, or are more conforming than usual, was observed in 35% of IBS patients and 32% of non-IBS patients (P= 0.425).
The K scale measures defensiveness and assesses the willingness of the client to disclose personal information and to discuss his/her problems. The K scale is lower in IBS patients than in non-IBS patients, but it does not change with the IBS phenotypes.
In the present study, all clinical scales were different between IBS and non-IBS patients. Nevertheless, after multivariate analysis, only 2 scales remained significant: Hypochondriasis and Masculinity-Femininity.
The Supplementary Text contains the discussion of results on content, supplementary, and Harris-Lingoes scales.
Surprisingly, although all clinical scales were higher in IBS patients than in the other FGID patients, only 1 validity scale (F) and 2 clinical scales (Depression and Hypomania) varied significantly according to the IBS subtype. In a previous study using IBS subgroups clinically and not Rome III defined subgroups, it was found, contrarily to our study, only significant differences on scales K, F, and Social introversion [33]. Nevertheless, post hoc analysis revealed that for scale K, the IBS-D group scored higher than both the IBS-C and IBS-M groups. In contrast, while on scale Social introversion the pain-diarrhea group only scored higher than the pain-constipation group, but this study did not use the Rome III criteria, and did not include logistic analysis. In the present study, the different IBS phenotypes are characterized by specific psychological profiles as compared to non-IBS patients or IBS-U patients, despite the main differences are found between IBS and non-IBS FGID patients.
The IBS-C group has higher values for the scales K, Anxiety, and lower values for the scales Schizophrenia, and Masculine gender role than non-IBS patients. These patients have a defensive approach to the test and lack of confidence. As reported in previous studies, we found in the IBS-C group, a tendency to exaggerate physical symptoms [34] related to a psychological need to exaggerate and complain, and increased preoccupation about one’s health. The IBS-C group also has a higher frequency of patients with abnormal Hypochondriasis scale (see Supplementary Text).
As previously found in a limited group of Iranian IBS patients [35], IBS-D patients have a higher value for the Infrequency scale, in favor of overall psychopathology, resentment, or moodiness.
By comparison with the non-IBS group, IBS-M patients have lower values for the VRIN scale, the best measure of random, or inconsistent responding. They also have a lower Masculine gender role scale, as previously described in 70 non-subtyped male IBS patients [36], a lower Fears scale, lower Low self-esteem scale, and a larger Psychasthenia scale. In this group, a higher frequency of patients with abnormal Hypochondriasis scores was found (see Supplementary Text). Previously, it was found that IBS-M patients reported a higher number of somatic symptoms than IBS-C and mostly IBS-D patients [37]. These results could explain the results of the present study.
However, as compared to the non-IBS patients, only IBS-C and IBS-M patients are associated with an increased frequency of abnormal Hypochondriasis score. The frequency of abnormal Hypochondriasis score could be associated with the high frequency of overlapping disorders in IBS patients [38,39].
One major limitation of the present study is that the studied population is a population referred to a tertiary center focusing on FGIDs. Consequently, the expectation would be that there would be a higher level of co-morbid psychiatric distress. The present results could not be predictive of similar findings in a community population.
The cause-effect relationship between abnormal psychological traits and IBS symptoms remains controversial. Our data and other reports illustrate that abnormal psychological profiles do exist in IBS patients seeking medical help [40]. On the other hand, Drossman et al. [13] reported that psychological profiles in IBS nonpatients and subjects showing IBS symptoms but never seeking medical help were not different from the psychological profiles of healthy controls. From these observations, it was proposed that abnormal psychological behaviors are closely related to IBS patients seeking medical help. However, the control population of our study was composed of FGIDs patients with the same history of chronic functional digestive disease.
This study has some clinical implications. The present results tend to associate IBS to specific psychological profile rather than to a pattern of health care seeking pattern but also shows that abnormal scales are found in only a minority of IBS patients. In consequence, the use of antidepressant drugs must be proposed to only a limited percentage of patients as well as tricyclic or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants [41]. Besides, the difference classically performed between tricyclic antidepressants in case of diarrhea and abdominal pain, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants for IBS patients with abdominal pain and constipation must be reevaluated [42], mainly in IBS-U patients. Thus, the tailored management of IBS patients must be the rule, including medical treatment of the predominant cardinal symptom [43]: constipation, diarrhea, bloating, and abdominal pain in combination with dietary and psychological interventions.
To conclude, the present study shows that IBS patients, as compared with non-IBS patients, have significant increases in all clinical MMPI scales. Furthermore, we found significant differences in the psychological profiles according to the different IBS phenotypes.



The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.


No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


Conception and the design of the study: Bouchoucha M. Analysis of data: Bouchoucha M. Interpretation of the data: Bouchoucha M, Devroede G, Benamouzig R. Writing - original draft: Bouchoucha M, Devroede G, Benamouzig R. Writing - review and editing: all authors. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.


Supplementary materials are available at the Intestinal Research website (
Supplementary Table 1. MMPI Content, Supplementary and Harris-Lingoes Scales in IBS and Non-IBS Patients
Supplementary Table 2. Frequency of Abnormal MMPI Scales in IBS and Non-IBS Patients
Supplementary Table 3. Frequency of Abnormal MMPI Content, Supplementary and Harris-Lingoes Scales in IBS and Non-IBS Patients
Supplementary Table 4. MMPI Content, Supplementary and Harris-Lingoes Scales of IBS Subtypes Patients
Supplementary Table 5. Frequency of Abnormal MMPI Validity and Clinical Scales in IBS Phenotypes
Supplementary Table 6. Frequency of Abnormal MMPI Content, Supplementary and Harris-Lingoes Scales According to IBS Phenotypes

Fig. 1.
Graphical representation of the odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval of significant demographics and validity and clinical Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 scales (P<0.01) in irritable bowel syndrome patients compared with patients with other functional gastrointestinal disorders.
Fig. 2.
Graphical representation of the odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval of clinical and psychological significant items in at least one IBS subgroup (Hs, K, Hy, Mf, BMI) in IBS phenotypes compared with patients with other functional gastrointestinal disorders. IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; IBS-C, constipation-IBS; IBS-D, diarrhea-IBS; IBS-M, mixed IBS; IBS-U, unspecified IBS; Hs, Hypochondriasis; K, test defensiveness; Hy, Hysteria; Mf, Masculinity-Femininity; BMI, body mass index.
Table 1.
Demographics and Clinical Description of the Population
Variable All patients IBS Non-IBS P-value
No. of patients 608 (100) 235 (39) 373 (61) -
Age (yr) 44.5 ± 17.0 46.2 ± 16.9 43.5 ± 17.0 0.852
Female sex 419 (69) 166 (71) 253 (68) 0.262
BMI (kg/m²) 26.5 ± 6.0 25.4 ± 5.5 27.2 ± 6.2 < 0.001
Globus 118 (19) 53 (23) 65 (17) 0.074
Regurgitation 61 (10) 28 (12) 33 (9) 0.139
Chest pain 161 (26) 90 (38) 71 (19) < 0.001
Heartburn 186 (31) 94 (40) 92 (25) < 0.001
Dysphagia 118 (19) 59 (25) 59 (16) 0.004
Epigastric pain 44 (7) 24 (10) 20 (5) 0.019
Postprandial distress 105 (17) 64 (27) 41 (11) < 0.001
Nonspecific dyspepsia 153 (25) 90 (38) 63 (17) < 0.001
Aerophagia 163 (27) 94 (40) 69 (18) < 0.001
Bowel -
All IBS subtypes 235 (39) 235 (100) 0
IBS constipation 77 (13) 77 (33) 0
IBS diarrhea 68 (11) 68 (29) 0
IBS mixed 54 (9) 54 (23) 0
IBS unspecified 36 (6) 36 (15) 0
Constipation 89 (15) 0 89 (24)
Diarrhea 71 (12) 0 71 (19)
Bloating 42 (7) 0 42 (11)
Nonspecific 60 (10) 0 60 (16)
Abdominal pain 37 (6) 0 37 (10)
Soiling 60 (10) 33 (14) 27 (7) 0.005
Fecal incontinence 48 (8) 20 (9) 28 (8) 0.382
Levator Ani syndrome 35 (6) 25 (11) 10 (3) < 0.001
Proctalgia Fugax 41 (7) 25 (11) 16 (4) 0.002
Nonspecific anorectal pain 36 (6) 23 (10) 13 (3) 0.001
Obstructed defecation 216 (36) 127 (54) 89 (24) < 0.001

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; BMI, body mass index.

Table 2.
MMPI Validity and Clinical Scales in IBS and Non-IBS Patients
Scale All FGIDs patients IBS patients Non-IBS patients P-value
Validity scales
L scale 56.9 ± 10.7 56.4 ± 10.7 57.2 ± 10.7 0.382
Infrequency scale (F) 59.2 ± 16.7 63.1 ± 18.0 56.7 ± 15.3 < 0.001
Infrequency scale back (Fb) 58.9 ± 17.7 62.7 ± 20.3 56.6 ± 15.4 < 0.001
K scale 48.4 ± 10.5 46.7 ± 10.3 49.4 ± 10.4 0.002
TRIN 59.6 ± 9.0 59.6 ± 9.3 59.6 ± 8.7 0.910
VRIN 54.8 ± 10.9 55.2 ± 10.6 54.5 ± 11.1 0.418
Clinical scales
1 Hypochondriasis (Hs) 66.8 ± 13.6 72.0 ± 12.7 63.5 ± 13.1 < 0.001
2 Depression (D) 61.8 ± 12.2 64.9 ± 12.4 59.8 ± 11.7 < 0.001
3 Hysteria (Hy) 60.4 ± 13.9 65.0 ± 14.2 57.6 ± 12.9 < 0.001
4 Psychopathic deviate (Pd) 53.7 ± 12.3 55.4 ± 12.6 52.6 ± 12.0 0.005
5 Masculinity-Femininity (Mf) 52.9 ± 10.8 54.2 ± 10.8 52.0 ± 10.6 < 0.001
6 Paranoia (Pa) 55.8 ± 14.7 59.2 ± 15.9 53.6 ± 13.4 < 0.001
7 Psychasthenia (Pt) 56.7 ± 12.2 59.8 ± 12.3 54.8 ± 11.8 < 0.001
8 Schizophrenia (Sc) 57.1 ± 13.9 60.6 ± 14.4 54.9 ± 13.1 < 0.001
9 Hypomania (Ma) 50.8 ± 11.5 52.4 ± 12.5 49.7 ± 10.7 0.005
10 Social introversion (Si) 55.0 ± 10.1 56.0 ± 10.1 54.3 ± 10.0 0.042

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

MMPI, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; FGIDs, functional gastrointestinal disorders; TRIN, true response inconsistency; VRIN, variable response inconsistency.

Table 3.
Demographics and MMPI Validity and Clinical Scales of IBS Subtypes Patients
Variable IBS-C IBS-D IBS-M IBS-U P-value
No. of patients 77 (33) 68 (29) 54 (23) 36 (15)
Age (yr) 43.8 ± 15.6 46.6 ± 15.6 47.6 ± 18.0 46.6 ± 15.5 0.561
Female sex 66 (86) 46 (68) 31 (57) 23 (64) 0.003
BMI (kg/m²) 23.8 ± 4.9 27.4 ± 7.3 24.3 ± 5.2 26.3 ± 5.4 0.001
Validity scales
L scale 57.9 ± 10.6 57.1 ± 11.2 53.9 ± 10.2 56.0 ± 10.8 0.194
Infrequency scale (F) 60.8 ± 16.9 62.5 ± 17.5 69.1 ± 17.2 60.2 ± 20.7 0.039
Infrequency back (Fb) 60.9 ± 19.2 61.9 ± 21.5 68.2 ± 18.3 59.5 ± 22.2 0.135
K scale 48.0 ± 10.1 46.8 ± 10.7 43.5 ± 9.7 48.6 ± 10.5 0.061
TRIN 59.7 ± 9.8 59.4 ± 8.3 60.7 ± 10.2 57.8 ± 8.7 0.553
VRIN 55.2 ± 10.6 54.8 ± 11.3 55.8 ± 9.8 55.2 ± 10.4 0.967
Clinical scales
1 Hypochondriasis (Hs) 71.8 ± 13.4 71.1 ± 10.0 75.6 ± 13.2 68.3 ± 13.7 0.046
2 Depression (D) 64.6 ± 11.5 65.3 ± 10.8 68.2 ± 13.3 59.7 ± 14.2 0.015
3 Hysteria (Hy) 63.8 ± 13.9 66.3 ± 12.4 67.8 ± 16.8 61.2 ± 13.4 0.128
4 Psychopathic deviate (Pd) 53.9 ± 12.0 54.2 ± 11.7 59.1 ± 14.7 55.6 ± 11.8 0.098
5 Masculinity-Femininity (Mf) 54.5 ± 11.0 53.6 ± 11.4 55.4 ± 10.4 53.1 ± 10.3 0.728
6 Paranoia (Pa) 57.3 ± 15.7 58.3 ± 15.7 64.3 ± 14.8 57.2 ± 17.3 0.058
7 Psychasthenia (Pt) 58.5 ± 11.9 59.2 ± 11.0 63.8 ± 12.5 57.7 ± 14.0 0.046
8 Schizophrenia (Sc) 53.1 ± 12.4 49.5 ± 11.7 55.6 ± 12.9 51.8 ± 12.5 0.051
9 Hypomania (Ma) 59.0 ± 12.6 59.0 ± 14.2 66.2 ± 13.9 58.9 ± 17.4 0.013
10 Social introversion (Si) 55.2 ± 9.8 57.1 ± 9.7 57.4 ± 9.9 53.8 ± 11.7 0.267

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

MMPI, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; IBS-C, IBS-constipation; IBS-D, IBS-diarrhea; IBS-M, mixed IBS; IBS-U, IBS-unspecified; BMI, body mass index; TRIN, true response inconsistency; VRIN, variable response inconsistency.


1. Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD, Houghton LA, Mearin F, Spiller RC. Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1480-1491.
crossref pmid
2. Mearin F, Lacy BE, Chang L, et al. Bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2016;150:1393-1407.
3. Quigley EM, Abdel-Hamid H, Barbara G, et al. A global perspective on irritable bowel syndrome: a consensus statement of the World Gastroenterology Organisation Summit Task Force on irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:356-366.
crossref pmid
4. Hathaway SR. A coding system for MMPI profile classification. J Consult Psychol 1947;11:334-337.
crossref pmid pdf
5. Thumshirn M, Camilleri M, Hanson RB, Williams DE, Schei AJ, Kammer PP. Gastric mechanosensory and lower esophageal sphincter function in rumination syndrome. Am J Physiol 1998;275-G314-G321.
6. Heymen S, Wexner SD, Gulledge AD. MMPI assessment of patients with functional bowel disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:593-596.
crossref pmid
7. Devroede G, Girard G, Bouchoucha M, et al. Idiopathic constipation by colonic dysfunction: relationship with personality and anxiety. Dig Dis Sci 1989;34:1428-1433.
crossref pmid pdf
8. Butcher JN, Dahlstrom WG, Graham JR, Tellegen A, Kaemmer B. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI2): manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.

9. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Psychodyn Psychiatry 2012;40:377-396.
crossref pmid
10. Drossman DA. The functional gastrointestinal disorders and the Rome III process. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1377-1390.
crossref pmid
11. Drossman DA, Chang L. Psychosocial factors in the care of patients with GI disorders. In: Yamada T. eds. Textbook of gastroenterology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 2003:636-654.

12. Whitehead WE, Crowell MD, Robinson JC, Heller BR, Schuster MM. Effects of stressful life events on bowel symptoms: subjects with irritable bowel syndrome compared with subjects without bowel dysfunction. Gut 1992;33:825-830.
crossref pmid pmc
13. Drossman DA, McKee DC, Sandler RS, et al. Psychosocial factors in the irritable bowel syndrome: a multivariate study of patients and nonpatients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1988;95:701-708.
crossref pmid
14. Camilleri M, Vazquez-Roque M, Iturrino J, et al. Effect of a glucagon-like peptide 1 analog, ROSE-010, on GI motor functions in female patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2012;303-G120-G128.
15. Whitehead WE; Validation Working Team in Association with the Rome Questionnaire Committee. Development and validation of the Rome III diagnostic questionnaire. In: Drossman DA, Corazziari E, Talley NJ, Thompson WG, Whitehead WE, eds. Rome III: the functional gastrointestinal disorders. McLean: Degnon Associates, 2006:835-865.

16. Galmiche JP, Clouse RE, Bálint A, et al. Functional esophageal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1459-1465.
crossref pmid
17. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1466-1479.
crossref pmid
18. Bharucha AE, Wald A, Enck P, Rao S. Functional anorectal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1510-1518.
crossref pmid
19. Clouse RE, Mayer EA, Aziz Q, et al. Functional abdominal pain syndrome. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1492-1497.
crossref pmid
20. Bouchoucha M, Girault-Lidvan N, Hejnar M, Mary F, Airinei G, Benamouzig R. Clinical and psychological characteristics of patients with globus. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2019;43:614-622.
crossref pmid
21. Graham JR. MMPI-2: assessing personality and psychopathology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

22. Fishbain DA, Cole B, Cutler RB, Lewis J, Rosomoff HL, Rosomoff RS. Chronic pain and the measurement of personality: do states influence traits? Pain Med 2006;7:509-529.
crossref pmid pdf
23. Duleba AJ, Jubanyik KJ, Greenfeld DA, Olive DL. Changes in personality profile associated with laparoscopic surgery for chronic pelvic pain. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1998;5:389-395.
crossref pmid
24. Keye WR Jr. General evaluation of premenstrual symptoms. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1987;30:396-407.
crossref pmid
25. Richter JE. Stress and psychologic and environmental factors in functional dyspepsia. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1991;182:40-46.
crossref pmid
26. Richter JE, Obrecht WF, Bradley LA, Young LD, Anderson KO. Psychological comparison of patients with nutcracker esophagus and irritable bowel syndrome. Dig Dis Sci 1986;31:131-138.
crossref pmid pdf
27. Blanchard EB, Keefer L, Galovski TE, Taylor AE, Turner SM. Gender differences in psychological distress among patients with irritable bowel syndrome. J Psychosom Res 2001;50:271-275.
crossref pmid
28. Lee CT, Chuang TY, Lu CL, Chen CY, Chang FY, Lee SD. Abnormal vagal cholinergic function and psychological behaviors in irritable bowel syndrome patients: a hospital-based Oriental study. Dig Dis Sci 1998;43:1794-1799.
crossref pmid
29. Tosic-Golubovic S, Miljkovic S, Nagorni A, Lazarevic D, Nikolic G. Irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety, depression and personality characteristics. Psychiatr Danub 2010;22:418-424.
30. Whitehead WE, Crowell MD. Psychologic considerations in the irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1991;20:249-267.
crossref pmid
31. Brown TA, Sellbom M. The utility of the MMPI-2-RF validity scales in detecting underreporting. J Pers Assess 2020;102:66-74.
crossref pmid
32. Leonelli BT, Chang CH, Bock RD, Schilling SG. Interpretation of a full-information item-level factor analysis of the MMPI-2: normative sampling and nonpathognomonic descriptors. J Pers Assess 2000;74:400-422.
crossref pmid
33. Blanchard EB, Radnitz CL, Evans DD, Schwarz SP, Neff DF, Gerardi MA. Psychological comparisons of irritable bowel syndrome to chronic tension and migraine headache and nonpatient controls. Biofeedback Self Regul 1986;11:221-230.
crossref pmid pdf
34. Bouchoucha M, Hejnar M, Devroede G, Boubaya M, Bon C, Benamouzig R. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome and constipation are more depressed than patients with functional constipation. Dig Liver Dis 2014;46:213-218.
crossref pmid
35. Mousavinasab SM, Gorganinezhad-Moshiri M, Saberifirouzi M, Dehbozorgi G, Mehrabani D. Personality characteristics and irritable bowel syndrome in Shiraz, southern Iran. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2007;13:168-171.
crossref pmid
36. Miller V, Whitaker K, Morris JA, Whorwell PJ. Gender and irritable bowel syndrome: the male connection. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38:558-560.
crossref pmid
37. Patel P, Bercik P, Morgan DG, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome is significantly associated with somatisation in 840 patients, which may drive bloating. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;41:449-458.
crossref pmid
38. Agréus L, Svärdsudd K, Nyrén O, Tibblin G. Irritable bowel syndrome and dyspepsia in the general population: overlap and lack of stability over time. Gastroenterology 1995;109:671-680.
crossref pmid
39. Cremonini F, Talley NJ. Review article: the overlap between functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A tale of one or two disorders? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;20 Suppl 7:40-49.
crossref pmid
40. Walker EA, Roy-Byrne PP, Katon WJ. Irritable bowel syndrome and psychiatric illness. Am J Psychiatry 1990;147:565-572.
crossref pmid
41. Talley NJ. Antidepressants in IBS: are we deluding ourselves? Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:921-923.
crossref pmid
42. Lacy BE, Weiser K, De Lee R. The treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2009;2:221-238.
crossref pmid pmc
43. Bouchoucha M, Devroede G, Fysekidis M, Rompteaux P, Sabate JM, Benamouzig R. Data mining approach for the characterization of functional bowel disorders according to symptom intensity provides a small number of homogenous groups. Dig Dis 2020;38:310-319.
crossref pmid
Share :
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+ Line it
METRICS Graph View
  • 7 Web of Science
  • 6 Crossref
  •   Scopus
  • 17,310 View
  • 110 Download
We recommend

Article Category

Browse all articles >


Browse all articles >

Editorial Office
Room 310, Lotte Gold Rose II, 31 Seolleung-ro 86-gil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06193, Korea
Tel: +82-2-957-6145    Fax: +82-2-957-6146    E-mail:                

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next