To determine the reliability and concurrent validity of a visual analogue scale (VAS) for disability as a single-item instrument measuring disability in chronic pain patients was the objective of the study. For the reliability study a test-retest design and for the validity study a cross-sectional design was used. A general rehabilitation centre and a university rehabilitation centre was the setting for the study. The study population consisted of patients over 18 years of age, suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain; 52 patients in the reliability study, 344 patients in the validity study. Main outcome measures were as follows. Reliability study: Spearman's correlation coefficients (rho values) of the test and retest data of the VAS for disability; validity study: rho values of the VAS disability scores with the scores on four domains of the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and VAS pain scores, and with Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores in chronic low back pain patients. Results were as follows: in the reliability study rho values varied from 0.60 to 0.77; and in the validity study rho values of VAS disability scores with SF-36 domain scores varied from 0.16 to 0.51, with Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores from 0.38 to 0.43 and with VAS pain scores from 0.76 to 0.84. The conclusion of the study was that the reliability of the VAS for disability is moderate to good. Because of a weak correlation with other disability instruments and a strong correlation with the VAS for pain, however, its validity is questionable.

The aim of this study was to find the cut-off points on the visual analogue scale (VAS) to distinguish among mild, moderate, and severe pain, in relation to the following: pain-related interference with functioning; verbal description of the VAS scores; and latent class analysis for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. A total of 456 patients were included. Pain was assessed using the VAS and verbal rating scale; functioning was assessed using the domains of the Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36). Eight cut-off point schemes were tested using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), ordinal logistic regression, and latent class analysis. The study results showed that VAS scores ⩽ 3.4 corresponded to mild interference with functioning, whereas 3.5 to 6.4 implied moderate interference, and ⩾ 6.5 implied severe interference. VAS scores ⩽ 3.4 were best described for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain as mild pain, 3.5 to 7.4 as moderate pain, and ⩾ 7.5 as severe pain. Latent class analysis found that a 3-class solution fitted best, resulting in the classes 0.1 to 3.8, 3.9 to 5.7, and 5.8 to 10 cm. Findings from our study agree with those of some other studies, although many other studies found different optimal cut-off point schemes. As there appear to be no universally accepted cut-off points, and in view of the low-to-moderate associations between VAS scores and functioning and between VAS and verbal rating scale scores, the correct classification of VAS scores as mild, moderate. or severe in clinical practice seems doubtful.

Objectives: The 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is often used in pain management. The aims of our study were to determine the cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, to measure the variability of the optimal cut-off points, and to determine the influence of patients’ catastrophizing and their sex on these cut-off points.Methods: 2854 patients were included. Pain was assessed by the NRS, functioning by the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and catastrophizing by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Cut-off point schemes were tested using ANOVAs with and without using the PSC scores or sex as co-variates and with the interaction between CP scheme and PCS score and sex, respectively. The variability of the optimal cut-off point schemes was quantified using bootstrapping procedure.Results and conclusion: The study showed that NRS scores ≤ 5 correspond to mild, scores of 6–7 to moderate and scores ≥8 to severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning. Bootstrapping analysis identified this optimal NRS cut-off point scheme in 90% of the bootstrapping samples. The interpretation of the NRS is independent of sex, but seems to depend on catastrophizing. In patients with high catastrophizing tendency, the optimal cut-off point scheme equals that for the total study sample, but in patients with a low catastrophizing tendency, NRS scores ≤ 3 correspond to mild, scores of 4–6 to moderate and scores ≥7 to severe pain in terms of interference with functioning. In these optimal cut-off schemes, NRS scores of 4 and 5 correspond to moderate interference with functioning for patients with low catastrophizing tendency and to mild interference for patients with high catastrophizing tendency. Theoretically one would therefore expect that among the patients with NRS scores 4 and 5 there would be a higher average PDI score for those with low catastrophizing than for those with high catastrophizing. However, we found the opposite. The fact that we did not find the same optimal CP scheme in the subgroups with lower and higher catastrophizing tendency may be due to chance variability.