Eun Joo Kim1, MaryBeth Tank Buschmann. 1. Department of Nursing, Daejeon University, 96-3, Yongun-dong, Dong-gu, Daejeon 300-716, Korea. ejkim@dju.ac.kr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Faces Pain Scale (FPS) is effective with older adults in clinical assessment of pain intensity. The 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) has universally adapted for assessment of pain intensity. The commonly used versions of the FPS have six, seven or nine faces. OBJECTIVES: We proposed an 11 face modified version of the McGrath nine face FPS to compare with the 0-10 NRS without the mathematical translation. The psychometric properties of the proposed version were also investigated in a sample of Korean older adults. DESIGN: This study employed methodological research design. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 31 older adults was recruited through local senior citizen centers to examine the construct validity and the test-retest reliability. For the concurrent validity testing, a sample of 85 older adults with chronic pain was recruited through a general hospital and an oriental medical hospital. METHODS: The construct validity was examined by determining if the subjects perceive the FPS as representing pain and they agree on the rank of each face. The test-retest reliability was examined at a 2-week interval. The concurrent validity was examined by using the NRS and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Subjects perceived the 11 FPS as a pain measure, and the subjects' agreements in the rank ordering of the faces were almost perfect (Kendall's W = .93, p < .001). Cohen's kappa of .61 (p < .001) for test-retest reliability was acceptable in the cognitively intact subjects. Concurrent validity measured by the correlation between the FPS and the NRS (r = .73, p < .001) and the VAS (r = .73, p < .001) was supported. CONCLUSIONS: These results supported the appropriateness of the 11 FPS for use with the older adults in clinical practice to measure pain intensity. Additionally, this study provided cross-cultural evidence to evaluate usefulness of the FPS.
BACKGROUND: The Faces Pain Scale (FPS) is effective with older adults in clinical assessment of pain intensity. The 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) has universally adapted for assessment of pain intensity. The commonly used versions of the FPS have six, seven or nine faces. OBJECTIVES: We proposed an 11 face modified version of the McGrath nine face FPS to compare with the 0-10 NRS without the mathematical translation. The psychometric properties of the proposed version were also investigated in a sample of Korean older adults. DESIGN: This study employed methodological research design. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 31 older adults was recruited through local senior citizen centers to examine the construct validity and the test-retest reliability. For the concurrent validity testing, a sample of 85 older adults with chronic pain was recruited through a general hospital and an oriental medical hospital. METHODS: The construct validity was examined by determining if the subjects perceive the FPS as representing pain and they agree on the rank of each face. The test-retest reliability was examined at a 2-week interval. The concurrent validity was examined by using the NRS and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Subjects perceived the 11 FPS as a pain measure, and the subjects' agreements in the rank ordering of the faces were almost perfect (Kendall's W = .93, p < .001). Cohen's kappa of .61 (p < .001) for test-retest reliability was acceptable in the cognitively intact subjects. Concurrent validity measured by the correlation between the FPS and the NRS (r = .73, p < .001) and the VAS (r = .73, p < .001) was supported. CONCLUSIONS: These results supported the appropriateness of the 11 FPS for use with the older adults in clinical practice to measure pain intensity. Additionally, this study provided cross-cultural evidence to evaluate usefulness of the FPS.
Authors: Cagla Kantarcigil; Min Ku Kim; Taehoo Chang; Bruce A Craig; Anne Smith; Chi Hwan Lee; Georgia A Malandraki Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Julia F-M Gilmartin-Thomas; Andrew Forbes; Danny Liew; John J McNeil; Flavia M Cicuttini; Alice J Owen; Michael E Ernst; Mark R Nelson; Jessica Lockery; Stephanie A Ward; Ljoudmila Busija Journal: Pain Pract Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Ruud Groeneweg; Hans Kropman; Huco Leopold; Luite van Assen; Jan Mulder; Maurits W van Tulder; Rob A B Oostendorp Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2010-01-24 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Diana D Shi; Tracy A Balboni; Monica S Krishnan; Alexander Spektor; Mai Anh Huynh; Ron Y Shiloh; Sonia Skamene; Cierra Zaslowe-Dude; Lauren M Hertan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 3.359