OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare the psychometric properties of two common observational pain assessment tools used in persons with dementia. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional descriptive study nursing home (NH) residents were videotaped at rest and during a structured movement procedure. Following one training session and one practice session, two trained graduate nursing research assistants independently scored the tapes using the two pain observation tools. SETTING:Fourteen NHs in Western Washington State participating in a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to enhance pain assessment and management. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty participants with moderate to severe pain were identified by nursing staff or chosen based on the pain items from the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment. MEASURES: Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators (CNPI) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), demographic and pain-related data (Minimum Data Set), nursing assistant reports of participants' usual pain intensity, and Pittsburgh Agitation Scale. RESULTS: Internal consistency for both tools was good except for the CNPI at rest for one rater. Inter-rater reliability for pain presence was fair (K = 0.25 for CNPI with movement; K = 0.31 for PAINAD at rest) to moderate (K = 0.43 for CNPI at rest; K = 0.54 for PAINAD with movement). There were significant differences in mean CNPI and PAINAD scores at rest and during movement, providing support for construct validity. However, both tools demonstrated marked floor effects, particularly when participants were at rest. CONCLUSIONS: Despite earlier studies supporting the reliability and validity of the CNPI and the PAINAD, findings from the current study indicate that these measures warrant further study with clinical users, should be used cautiously both in research and clinical settings and only as part of a comprehensive approach to pain assessment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare the psychometric properties of two common observational pain assessment tools used in persons with dementia. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional descriptive study nursing home (NH) residents were videotaped at rest and during a structured movement procedure. Following one training session and one practice session, two trained graduate nursing research assistants independently scored the tapes using the two pain observation tools. SETTING: Fourteen NHs in Western Washington State participating in a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to enhance pain assessment and management. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty participants with moderate to severe pain were identified by nursing staff or chosen based on the pain items from the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment. MEASURES: Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators (CNPI) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), demographic and pain-related data (Minimum Data Set), nursing assistant reports of participants' usual pain intensity, and Pittsburgh Agitation Scale. RESULTS: Internal consistency for both tools was good except for the CNPI at rest for one rater. Inter-rater reliability for pain presence was fair (K = 0.25 for CNPI with movement; K = 0.31 for PAINAD at rest) to moderate (K = 0.43 for CNPI at rest; K = 0.54 for PAINAD with movement). There were significant differences in mean CNPI and PAINAD scores at rest and during movement, providing support for construct validity. However, both tools demonstrated marked floor effects, particularly when participants were at rest. CONCLUSIONS: Despite earlier studies supporting the reliability and validity of the CNPI and the PAINAD, findings from the current study indicate that these measures warrant further study with clinical users, should be used cautiously both in research and clinical settings and only as part of a comprehensive approach to pain assessment.
Authors: Thomas Hadjistavropoulos; Keela Herr; Dennis C Turk; Perry G Fine; Robert H Dworkin; Robert Helme; Kenneth Jackson; Patricia A Parmelee; Thomas E Rudy; B Lynn Beattie; John T Chibnall; Kenneth D Craig; Betty Ferrell; Bruce Ferrell; Roger B Fillingim; Lucia Gagliese; Romayne Gallagher; Stephen J Gibson; Elizabeth L Harrison; Benny Katz; Francis J Keefe; Susan J Lieber; David Lussier; Kenneth E Schmader; Raymond C Tait; Debra K Weiner; Jaime Williams Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: J Rosen; L Burgio; M Kollar; M Cain; M Allison; M Fogleman; M Michael; G S Zubenko Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 1994 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Paolo L Manfredi; Brenda Breuer; Sylvan Wallenstein; Marian Stegmann; Gail Bottomley; Leslie Libow Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Patricia Lane; Marilyn Kuntupis; Sally MacDonald; Patricia McCarthy; Jo Ann Panke; Victoria Warden; Ladislav Volicer Journal: Home Healthc Nurse Date: 2003-01
Authors: Mary Ersek; Nayak Polissar; Anna Du Pen; Anita Jablonski; Keela Herr; Moni B Neradilek Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Deborah B McGuire; Karen Snow Kaiser; Mary Ellen Haisfield-Wolfe; Florence Iyamu Journal: Nurs Clin North Am Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.208
Authors: Lisa X Deng; Kanan Patel; Christine Miaskowski; Ingrid Maravilla; Sarah Schear; Sarah Garrigues; Nicole Thompson; Andrew D Auerbach; Christine S Ritchie Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Janine van Kooten; Suzanne Delwel; Tarik T Binnekade; Martin Smalbrugge; Johannes C van der Wouden; Roberto S G M Perez; Didi Rhebergen; Wouter W A Zuurmond; Max L Stek; Frank Lobbezoo; Cees M P M Hertogh; Erik J A Scherder Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Clare Ellis-Smith; Catherine J Evans; Anna E Bone; Lesley A Henson; Mendwas Dzingina; Pauline M Kane; Irene J Higginson; Barbara A Daveson Journal: BMC Med Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Mary Ersek; Keela Herr; Michelle M Hilgeman; Moni Blazej Neradilek; Nayak Polissar; Karon F Cook; Princess Nash; A Lynn Snow; Meghan McDarby; Francis X Nelson Journal: Pain Med Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.637