Literature DB >> 12237213

Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: a randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers.

Robert N Jamison1, Richard H Gracely, Stephen A Raymond, Jonathan G Levine, Barbara Marino, Timothy J Herrmann, Margaret Daly, David Fram, Nathaniel P Katz.   

Abstract

The visual analogue scale (VAS) is an established, validated, self-report measure usually consisting of a 10 cm line on paper with verbal anchors labeling the ends. Palmtop computers (PTCs also known as personal digital appliances) have incorporated VAS entry by use of a touch screen. However, the validity and psychophysical properties of the electronic VAS have never been formally compared with the conventional paper VAS. The aim of this study is to determine the agreement between the electronic (eVAS) and paper (pVAS) modes. Twenty-four healthy volunteers were recruited for this study. Each study participant provided input using both measurement methods by marking the eVAS and pVAS in response to two kinds of stimuli, cognitive and sensory. A verbal rating scale of seven descriptors of intensity represented the cognitive stimuli. Participants were asked to mark the location that best corresponded to the pain intensity described by each word on scales from 'no pain' to 'worst possible pain'. The sensory stimuli used were a set of test weights consisting of plastic containers ranging from 7 to 129 g. The VAS for sensory stimuli ranged from 0 (no weight) to 'reference weight' (the heaviest weight outside the range of test weights). There were two types of input stimuli and two modes for recording responses for a total of four experimental conditions. Two evaluators independently measured and recorded all the pVAS forms to the nearest millimeter. A total of 2016 stimuli were rated. The overall correlation for ratings of both sensory and cognitive stimuli on eVAS and pVAS was r = 0.91. For paired verbal stimuli the correlation was r = 0.97. For paired sensory stimuli the correlation was r = 0.86. The correlation between group eVAS and pVAS ratings to common verbal stimuli was r = 0.99. For common sensory stimuli the group correlation was r = 0.99. The median of correlations comparing eVAS and pVAS ratings was 0.99 for verbal stimuli and 0.98 for sensory stimuli. Multivariate analyses showed equivalent stimuli to be rated much the same whether entered on paper VAS or PTC touch screen VAS (P < 0.0001). Support was found for the validity of the computer version of the VAS scale. Copyright 2002 International Association for the Study of Pain

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12237213     DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00178-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  44 in total

1.  Reliability of a preliminary 3-D pain mapping program.

Authors:  Robert N Jamison; Tabitha A Washington; Padma Gulur; Gilbert J Fanciullo; John R Arscott; Gregory J McHugo; John C Baird
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 3.750

Review 2.  Pain assessment.

Authors:  Mathias Haefeli; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Lower-order pain-related constructs are more predictive of cold pressor pain ratings than higher-order personality traits.

Authors:  Jennifer E Lee; David Watson; Laura A Frey Law
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 5.820

Review 4.  Chronic pain assessment from bench to bedside: lessons along the translation continuum.

Authors:  Bryan Jensen
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Integrating pain management in clinical practice.

Authors:  Robert N Jamison; Robert R Edwards
Journal:  J Clin Psychol Med Settings       Date:  2012-03

6.  A smartwatch-based framework for real-time and online assessment and mobility monitoring.

Authors:  Matin Kheirkhahan; Sanjay Nair; Anis Davoudi; Parisa Rashidi; Amal A Wanigatunga; Duane B Corbett; Tonatiuh Mendoza; Todd M Manini; Sanjay Ranka
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 6.317

7.  Effects of Indoor Thermal Environment on Human Food Intake, Productivity, and Comfort: Pilot, Randomized, Crossover Trial.

Authors:  Molly B Richardson; Peng Li; Julia M Gohlke; David B Allison
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 5.002

8.  Mechanism-driven phase I translational study of trifluoperazine in adults with sickle cell disease.

Authors:  Robert E Molokie; Diana J Wilkie; Harriett Wittert; Marie L Suarez; Yingwei Yao; Zhongsheng Zhao; Ying He; Zaijie J Wang
Journal:  Eur J Pharmacol       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 4.432

9.  Electronic diaries and questionnaires: designing user interfaces that are easy for all patients to use.

Authors:  Mikael Palmblad; Brian Tiplady
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  How should we use the visual analogue scale (VAS) in rehabilitation outcomes? II: Visual analogue scales as ratio scales: an alternative to the view of Kersten et al.

Authors:  Donald D Price; Roland Staud; Michael E Robinson
Journal:  J Rehabil Med       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.