Elisabet Sánchez-Rodríguez1, Rocío de la Vega1, Elena Castarlenas1, Roman Roset1, Jordi Miró1. 1. Department of Psychology and Institut d'investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili, Unit for the Study and Treatment of Pain - ALGOS, Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Painometer is a mobile application that includes four pain intensity scales: the Numerical Rating Scale, the Faces Pain Scale-Revised, the mechanical visual analogue scale and the Colored Analogue Scale. The aim of this study was to analyze the validity and agreement of the intensity reports provided by these scales and their traditional counterparts. METHODS: Participants were 180 young people (mean age = 14.88; SD= 1.64; age range: 12-19). They were asked to report the maximum intensity of their most frequent pain in the previous three months using traditional and electronic versions of the scales. They also reported their level of fatigue and pain catastrophizing. Construct validity was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and by convergent and discriminant validity. Criterion validity was assessed as concurrent validity. Agreement was calculated using the Bland and Altman method. Analyses were conducted for two confidence intervals (CI): 95% and 80%. RESULTS: CFA demonstrated that the four electronic versions of the scales measure a single factor. All the scales showed a) moderate to high convergent validity, b) adequate discriminant validity with fatigue ratings, and c) adequate concurrent validity with pain catastrophizing ratings. Results also show that traditional and electronic versions of the four scales are in agreement, at least at the 80% CI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that pain intensity scores reported with the scales in Painometer are valid, and concordant with their traditional counterparts. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: Painometer is a mobile application that includes four pain intensity scales: the Numerical Rating Scale, the Faces Pain Scale-Revised, the mechanical visual analogue scale and the Colored Analogue Scale. The aim of this study was to analyze the validity and agreement of the intensity reports provided by these scales and their traditional counterparts. METHODS:Participants were 180 young people (mean age = 14.88; SD= 1.64; age range: 12-19). They were asked to report the maximum intensity of their most frequent pain in the previous three months using traditional and electronic versions of the scales. They also reported their level of fatigue and pain catastrophizing. Construct validity was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and by convergent and discriminant validity. Criterion validity was assessed as concurrent validity. Agreement was calculated using the Bland and Altman method. Analyses were conducted for two confidence intervals (CI): 95% and 80%. RESULTS:CFA demonstrated that the four electronic versions of the scales measure a single factor. All the scales showed a) moderate to high convergent validity, b) adequate discriminant validity with fatigue ratings, and c) adequate concurrent validity with pain catastrophizing ratings. Results also show that traditional and electronic versions of the four scales are in agreement, at least at the 80% CI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that pain intensity scores reported with the scales in Painometer are valid, and concordant with their traditional counterparts. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Assessment; Mobile app; Pain Intensity; Smartphone; Young People
Authors: Lindsay A Jibb; James S Khan; Puneet Seth; Chitra Lalloo; Lauren Mulrooney; Kathryn Nicholson; Dominik A Nowak; Harneel Kaur; Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow; Joel Foster; Jennifer N Stinson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Toan Thanh Thi Do; Mai Dinh Le; Thanh Van Nguyen; Bach Xuan Tran; Huong Thi Le; Hinh Duc Nguyen; Long Hoang Nguyen; Cuong Tat Nguyen; Tho Dinh Tran; Carl A Latkin; Roger C M Ho; Melvyn W B Zhang Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kristen S Higgins; Perri R Tutelman; Christine T Chambers; Holly O Witteman; Melanie Barwick; Penny Corkum; Doris Grant; Jennifer N Stinson; Chitra Lalloo; Sue Robins; Rita Orji; Isabel Jordan Journal: Pain Rep Date: 2018-09-11
Authors: Alexandra Turnbull; Dean Sculley; Carles Escalona-Marfil; Lluís Riu-Gispert; Jorge Ruiz-Moreno; Xavier Gironès; Andrea Coda Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jordi Miró; Elisabet Sánchez-Rodríguez; Alexandra Ferreira-Valente; José Pais-Ribeiro; Antonella Ciaramella Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alexandra Turnbull; Dean Sculley; Derek Santos; Mohammed Maarj; Lachlan Chapple; Xavier Gironès; Antoni Fellas; Andrea Coda Journal: Med Sci (Basel) Date: 2022-01-25