3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The assessment of pain quality: an item response theory analysis.

      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

          Item Response Theory (IRT) is being increasingly used to develop and evaluate outcome measures. However, many pain measures, including those that assess pain quality, have yet to be evaluated from the IRT perspective. The current study evaluated the scales of a commonly used measure of pain quality (the Pain Quality Assessment Scale, or PQAS) using IRT analyses in 3 samples of patients with chronic pain. The findings indicated variability in the precision of the scales, suggesting that all 3 of the PQAS scales are precise when pain is severe and that the Paroxysmal and Deep scales but not necessarily the Surface scale are precise when pain is of moderate or lower severity. In addition, 2 potential problems with the 11 (ie, 0 to 10) response levels used for the PQAS items were identified: (1) a high degree of overlap between adjacent response levels and (2) a lack of interval scaling. Research is needed to determine the extent to which these problems do, or do not, threaten the validity of the PQAS items and scales as outcome measures in pain clinical trials.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Pain
          The journal of pain
          Elsevier BV
          1528-8447
          1526-5900
          Mar 2010
          : 11
          : 3
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19341, USA.
          Article
          S1526-5900(09)00692-0
          10.1016/j.jpain.2009.07.014
          20211439
          dff24191-215f-40ad-8f3f-b6da110fc06e
          Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article