Mark P Jensen1, Wei Wang, Susan L Potts, Errol M Gould. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. mjensen@uw.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the validity and reliability of individual and composite recall pain intensity measures. DESIGN: Secondary analyses using data from a published 14-day open-label crossover clinical trial comparing two active treatments. SETTING: Multiple settings. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two adults with a history of chronic cancer pain. MEASURES: Recall ratings of least, worst, and average pain during the past 2 days; composite score representing recalled characteristic pain in the past 2 days; and daily diary ratings of pain intensity from which "actual" least, worst, and average pain scores were derived. RESULTS:Recall ratings of least and average pain, and a composite score representing recalled characteristic pain were accurate (differed no more than three points from "actual" scores on a 0-100 scale). Although the recall rating of worst pain significantly (P < 0.05) overestimated actual worst pain, the differences were minor (i.e., seven to eight points on a 0-100 scale). All of the recall measures demonstrated validity via their strong associations with the measures of actual pain intensity. The recall measures also demonstrated excellent test-retest stability, although the diary-derived measures tended to be more stable than the recall measures did. The composite measure of recalled characteristic pain demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS:Individual recall ratings and a composite score representing recalled characteristic pain intensity are reliable and valid measures of actual pain in patients with cancer. The findings support their use as outcome measures in clinical trials. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the validity and reliability of individual and composite recall pain intensity measures. DESIGN: Secondary analyses using data from a published 14-day open-label crossover clinical trial comparing two active treatments. SETTING: Multiple settings. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two adults with a history of chronic cancer pain. MEASURES: Recall ratings of least, worst, and average pain during the past 2 days; composite score representing recalled characteristic pain in the past 2 days; and daily diary ratings of pain intensity from which "actual" least, worst, and average pain scores were derived. RESULTS: Recall ratings of least and average pain, and a composite score representing recalled characteristic pain were accurate (differed no more than three points from "actual" scores on a 0-100 scale). Although the recall rating of worst pain significantly (P < 0.05) overestimated actual worst pain, the differences were minor (i.e., seven to eight points on a 0-100 scale). All of the recall measures demonstrated validity via their strong associations with the measures of actual pain intensity. The recall measures also demonstrated excellent test-retest stability, although the diary-derived measures tended to be more stable than the recall measures did. The composite measure of recalled characteristic pain demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Individual recall ratings and a composite score representing recalled characteristic pain intensity are reliable and valid measures of actual pain in patients with cancer. The findings support their use as outcome measures in clinical trials. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Ravi Karkar; Jessica Schroeder; Daniel A Epstein; Laura R Pina; Jeffrey Scofield; James Fogarty; Julie A Kientz; Sean A Munson; Roger Vilardaga; Jasmine Zia Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2017-05-02
Authors: Katie Spencer; Galina Velikova; Ann Henry; Paulien Westhoff; Pe Ter Hall; Yvette M van der Linden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Virginia Prieto-Gómez; María José Yuste-Sánchez; Javier Bailón-Cerezo; Helena Romay-Barrero; Irene de la Rosa-Díaz; Cristina Lirio-Romero; María Torres-Lacomba Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Alessandro Chiarotto; Maarten Boers; Richard A Deyo; Rachelle Buchbinder; Terry P Corbin; Leonardo O P Costa; Nadine E Foster; Margreth Grotle; Bart W Koes; Francisco M Kovacs; C-W Christine Lin; Chris G Maher; Adam M Pearson; Wilco C Peul; Mark L Schoene; Dennis C Turk; Maurits W van Tulder; Caroline B Terwee; Raymond W Ostelo Journal: Pain Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 6.961