12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods :

      , ,
      Pain
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The measurement of subjective pain intensity continues to be important to both researchers and clinicians. Although several scales are currently used to assess the intensity construct, it remains unclear which of these provides the most precise, replicable, and predictively valid measure. Five criteria for judging intensity scales have been considered in previous research: ease of administration of scoring; relative rates of incorrect responding; sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories; sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and the magnitude of the relationship between each scale and a linear combination of pain intensity indices. In order to judge commonly used pain intensity measures, 75 chronic pain patients were asked to rate 4 kinds of pain (present, least, most, and average) using 6 scales. The utility and validity of the scales was judged using the criteria listed above. The results indicate that, for the present sample, the scales yield similar results in terms of the number of subjects who respond correctly to them and their predictive validity. However, when considering the remaining 3 criteria, the 101-point numerical rating scale appears to be the most practical index.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Pain
          Pain
          Elsevier BV
          0304-3959
          1986
          October 1986
          : 27
          : 1
          : 117-126
          Article
          10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9
          3785962
          a85e580d-ac1b-4a0c-ab61-a9260ef32c24
          © 1986
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article