Abstract
The design used in this study was a prospective cohort. Pain intensity levels recorded
by the digital version of the visual analog scale (VAS-D) are easy to both score and
share with other health care professionals. The purpose of the study was to examine
the test–retest reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness of the VAS-D.
Thirty-three people with upper extremity injuries reported pain intensity levels before
and after performing four maximal grip contractions (pre- and postgripping). Our version
of the VAS-D had high test–retest reliability (r=0.96) and good concurrent validity (r=0.84–0.97) with both the paper version of the VAS (VAS-P) and the verbal numerical
rating scale (NRS-V). Responsiveness of the VAS-D was indicated by a significant increase
in pain levels from pre- to postgripping. Similar responsiveness to that of the VAS-P
and NRS-V was indicated by similar effect size coefficients and analysis of variance
of pain change scores. In conclusion, the VAS-D is a reliable, valid, and responsive
measure of pain intensity for people with upper extremity injuries. However, differences
in accuracy (resolution) among the VAS-D, VAS-P, or NRS-V may render the three pain
scales not fully compatible.
Level of Evidence
Not applicable.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Hand TherapyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Pain assessment with interactive computer animation.Pain. 1993; 53: 347-351
- Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: a randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers.Pain. 2002; 99: 341-347
- Pain assessment in patients with low back pain: comparison of weekly recall and momentary electronic data.J Pain. 2006; 7: 192-199
- Cost of lost productive work time among US workers with depression.JAMA. 2003; 289: 3135-3144
- Use of primary health services in sparsely populated country districts by patients with musculoskeletal symptoms: consultations with a physician.J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993; 47: 153-157
- Pain as a reason to visit the doctor: a study in Finnish primary health care.Pain. 2001; 89: 175-180
- Prevalence of pain in general practice.Eur J Pain. 2002; 6: 375-385
- Occupational disorders: non-specific forearm pain.Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007; 21: 349-365
- Estimating the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in the community: the comparative prevalence of symptoms at different anatomical sites, and the relation to social deprivation.Ann Rheum Dis. 1998; 57: 649-655
- Epidemiology of musculoskeletal impairments and associated disability.Am J Public Health. 1984; 74: 574-579
- New JCAHO Standards for Pain Management. Glenview, IL; Carpe Diem!.APS Bulletin, 2000
- Veterans' pain a vital sign.JAMA. 1999; 281: 978
- Is pain a vital sign?.Adv Skin Wound Care. 2003; 16: 214
- American pain society recommendations for improving the quality of acute and cancer pain management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force.Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165: 1574-1580
- Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults.in: Turk D.C. Melzack R. Handbook of Pain Assessment. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press, New York, NY2001: 15-34
- Linear analogue self-assessment and procrustean measurement: a critical review of visual analogue scaling in pain assessment.J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 1997; 4: 111-129
- Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment.Pain. 2004; 110: 310-317
- The use of pain scales in assessing the efficacy of analgesics in post-operative dental pain.Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1982; 23: 441-444
- The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods.Pain. 1986; 27: 117-126
- Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement.Pain. 1981; 10: 241-248
- Efficient pain assessment in clinical settings.Behav Res Ther. 1992; 30: 71-73
- Relationships between nurses' observations and patients' self-reports of pain.Pain. 1983; 16: 289-296
- Cancer-related pain—II. Assessment with visual analogue scales.J Psychosom Res. 1984; 28: 121-124
- Measurement of pain: the psychometric properties of the Pain-O-Meter, a simple, inexpensive pain assessment tool that could change health care practices.J Pain Symptom Manage. 1996; 12: 172-181
- A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data.Clin J Pain. 2000; 16: 22-28
- Responsiveness of pain scales: a comparison of three pain intensity measures in chiropractic patients.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998; 21: 1-7
- Reliability and responsiveness of three different pain assessments.J Rehabil Med. 2001; 33: 279-283
- Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review.Psychol Med. 1988; 18: 1007-1019
- Paper versus electronic rating scales for pain assessment: a prospective, randomised, cross-over validation study with 200 chronic pain patients.Curr Med Res Opin. 2008; 24: 1797-1806
- Assessment of pain using a computer.Anaesthesia. 1980; 35: 815-817
- Comparison of the traditional paper visual analogue scale questionnaire with an Apple Newton electronic appetite rating system (EARS) in free living subjects feeding ad libitum.Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998; 52: 737-741
- A comparison of the ability of two upper extremity assessments to measure change in function.J Hand Ther. 2010; 23 (quiz 40): 31-39
- Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores.Phys Ther. 1996; 76: 1109-1123
- Ability to detect change in patient function: responsiveness designs and methods of calculation.J Hand Ther. 2010; 23: 361-370
- Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status.Med Care. 1989; 27: S178-S189
- Responsiveness of visual analogue and McGill pain scale measures.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001; 24: 501-504
- The Functional Pain Scale: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in an elderly population.J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2001; 2: 110-114
- The McGill pain questionnaire: appraisal and current status.in: Turk D.C. Melzack R. Handbook of Pain Assessment. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press, New York, NY2001: 35-52
Slider Web FX. Slider. 1.02 ed. Gothenburg, Sweden: Slider WebFX, 2006. Available at: http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/slider/slider.html.
- Grip strength.in: Casanova J.S. Clinical Assessment Recommendations. 2nd ed. The American Society of Hand Therapists, Chicago, IL1992: 41-45
- Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice.2nd ed. Appleton & Lange, Norwalk, CT2000
- The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain.Anaesthesia. 1976; 31: 1191-1198
- Reliability and validity of the DynEx dynamometer.J Hand Ther. 2005; 18: 339-347
JHT Read for Credit
Quiz: Article #206
Record your answers on the Return Answer Form found on the tear-out coupon at the back of this issue or to complete online and use a credit card, go to JHTReadforCredit.com. There is only one best answer for each question.
- #1.Which of the following is NOT TRUE regarding responsiveness?
- a.responsiveness of an assessment means its ability to detect clinically meaningful change over time
- b.a common statistical method used to calculate responsiveness is effect size (ES)
- c.similar effect size (ES) coefficients between two pain scales indicate no difference in the ability of these scales to measure change in pain
- d.smaller effect size (ES) coefficients indicate greater responsiveness
- a.
- #2.In this study, test-retest reliability was determined by calculating
- a.Pearson moment correlation coefficients
- b.ANOVA
- c.Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)
- d.Kappas
- a.
- #3.A key result was that the digital VAS model was
- a.responsive, reliable, and valid
- b.responsive but not valid because it was not reliable
- c.reliable and valid but not responsive
- d.too difficult to administer to render it clinically useful
- a.
- #4.Pain was assessed
- a.while a noxious stimulus (pin prick) was applied
- b.pre and post gripping
- c.at the conclusion of treatment
- d.at the beginning of treatment
- a.
- #5.The authors concluded that the 3 pain scales that were compared were essentially all very compatible
- a.true
- b.false
- a.
When submitting to the HTCC for re-certification, please batch your JHT RFC certificates in groups of 3 or more to get full credit.
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 08, 2011
Identification
Copyright
© 2011 Hanley & Belfus. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
