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

Mark P. Jensen, Paul Karoly, Sanford Braver

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1870 Citations (Scopus)

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: (a) ease of administration of scoring; (b) relative rates of incorrect responding; (c) sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories; (d) sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and (e) 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)117-126
Number of pages10
JournalPain
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1986

Fingerprint

Pain Measurement
Pain
Chronic Pain
Research Personnel
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Neurology
  • Pharmacology
  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

The measurement of clinical pain intensity : a comparison of six methods. / Jensen, Mark P.; Karoly, Paul; Braver, Sanford.

In: Pain, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1986, p. 117-126.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jensen, Mark P. ; Karoly, Paul ; Braver, Sanford. / The measurement of clinical pain intensity : a comparison of six methods. In: Pain. 1986 ; Vol. 27, No. 1. pp. 117-126.
@article{cecbcee1116a43e0b7fc0c708fb05ee2,
title = "The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods",
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: (a) ease of administration of scoring; (b) relative rates of incorrect responding; (c) sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories; (d) sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and (e) 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.",
author = "Jensen, {Mark P.} and Paul Karoly and Sanford Braver",
year = "1986",
doi = "10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "117--126",
journal = "Pain",
issn = "0304-3959",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The measurement of clinical pain intensity

T2 - a comparison of six methods

AU - Jensen, Mark P.

AU - Karoly, Paul

AU - Braver, Sanford

PY - 1986

Y1 - 1986

N2 - 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: (a) ease of administration of scoring; (b) relative rates of incorrect responding; (c) sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories; (d) sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and (e) 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.

AB - 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: (a) ease of administration of scoring; (b) relative rates of incorrect responding; (c) sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories; (d) sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and (e) 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022467080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022467080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9

DO - 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 3785962

AN - SCOPUS:0022467080

VL - 27

SP - 117

EP - 126

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

SN - 0304-3959

IS - 1

ER -