Noelle E Carlozzi1,2, Stephen Schilling3, Jenna Freedman4, Claire Z Kalpakjian4, Anna L Kratz4. 1. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. carlozzi@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, NCRC B14, Room G216, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA. carlozzi@med.umich.edu. 3. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the most efficient means of measuring pain intensity and pain interference comparing ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to end of day (EOD) data, with the highest level of measurement reliability as examined in individuals with spinal cord injury. METHODS: EMA (five times throughout the day) and EOD ratings of pain and pain interference were collected over a 7-day period. Multilevel models were used to examine the reliability for both EOD and EMA assessments in order to determine the amount of variability in these assessments over the course of a week or the day, and a multilevel version of the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula was used to estimate values for reliability. RESULTS: Findings indicate the minimum of number of EOD and EMA assessments needed to achieve different levels of reliability ("adequate" > 0.70, "good" > 0.80 and excellent > 0.90). In addition, the time of day (either morning, midday or evening) did not impact the estimated reliability for the EMA assessments. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can help researchers and clinician balance the cost/benefit tradeoffs of these different types of assessments by providing specific cutoffs for the numbers of each type of assessment that are needed to achieve excellent reliability.
PURPOSE: This study investigated the most efficient means of measuring pain intensity and pain interference comparing ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to end of day (EOD) data, with the highest level of measurement reliability as examined in individuals with spinal cord injury. METHODS: EMA (five times throughout the day) and EOD ratings of pain and pain interference were collected over a 7-day period. Multilevel models were used to examine the reliability for both EOD and EMA assessments in order to determine the amount of variability in these assessments over the course of a week or the day, and a multilevel version of the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula was used to estimate values for reliability. RESULTS: Findings indicate the minimum of number of EOD and EMA assessments needed to achieve different levels of reliability ("adequate" > 0.70, "good" > 0.80 and excellent > 0.90). In addition, the time of day (either morning, midday or evening) did not impact the estimated reliability for the EMA assessments. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can help researchers and clinician balance the cost/benefit tradeoffs of these different types of assessments by providing specific cutoffs for the numbers of each type of assessment that are needed to achieve excellent reliability.
Authors: William T Riley; Nan Rothrock; Bonnie Bruce; Christopher Christodolou; Karon Cook; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Arthur A Stone; Joan E Broderick; Joseph E Schwartz; Saul Shiffman; Leighann Litcher-Kelly; Pamela Calvanese Journal: Pain Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Jinshil Hyun; Jiyue Qin; Cuiling Wang; Mindy J Katz; Jelena M Pavlovic; Carol A Derby; Richard B Lipton Journal: J Pain Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Jenna Freedman; Jonathan P Troost; Traci Carson; Ivan R Molton; Dawn M Ehde; Kayvan Najarian; Jennifer A Miner; Nicholas R Boileau; Anna L Kratz Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Duygu Kuzu; Jonathan P Troost; Noelle E Carlozzi; Dawn M Ehde; Ivan R Molton; Anna L Kratz Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Viann N Nguyen-Feng; Patricia A Frazier; Ali Stockness; Scott Lunos; Alexis N Hoedeman; Stephanie Misono Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Roschelle L Fritz; Marian Wilson; Gordana Dermody; Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe; Diane J Cook Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 5.428