Pain Assessment in Younger and Older Pain Patients: Psychometric Properties and Patient Preference of Five Commonly Used Measures of Pain Intensity

Peters, Madelon L.; Patijn, Jacob; Lamé, Inge

doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00311.x

Cited by 94 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The VDS had low error rates, good face and convergent and criterion validity in younger and older surgical patients (Gagliese et al, 2005). The VDS may be considered for pain assessment when the majority of subjects are elderly (Peters et al, 2007). The VDS was the most feasible pain scale for pain assessment in postoperative elderly patients (Pesonen et al, 2008).…”

Section: Unidimensional Assessment Tools Based On Self-reportmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Herr, Mobily, Kohout, and Wagenaar (1998) supported the validity and reliability of the FPS when they evaluated the FPS in elderly. Another study by Peters et al (2007) compared the VAS-horizontal (VAS-H), the VAS-vertical (VAS-V), the VDS, the Numerical Box-11 Scale (BS-11), and the BS-21 in younger and older patients. They found that the BS-21 was highly valid, had the lowest number of mistakes, and was the most preferred scale overall, although patients aged over 75 years especially preferred the VDS.…”

Section: Background and Significance Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For one thing, the findings of age differences in the psychometric properties of the pain scales are inconsistent. Some studies found that age differences in the psychometric properties of the pain scales were evident (Gagliese & Katz, 2003;Peters et al, 2007). However, another study failed to find the age differences in the psychometric properties of the pain scales (Li et al, 2007).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The SAC was developed by the researcher from a literature review to assess the accuracy of the pain scales. In the SAC, there were six types of error: (a) ratings outside the scale range (ratings between scale units or above/below the end-points of the scale); (b) no rating on the scale; (c) more than one rating on a single scale; (d) a range of ratings on one scale; (e) response falling between two numbers, words, or facial expressions; and (f) mistake in ordinal understanding of the scale (Peters et al, 2007). The meaning of mistake in understanding of the scale is explained as follows.…”

Section: According To MC Donald (2002) Face Validity Refers To What mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recalled worst pain score of the VDS was used as the gold standard score to be correlated with the recalled worst pain scores on the NRS, the FPS, the CAS, and the BS-21 because the VDS is thought to be easier for older adults to understand and prior psychometric validation (Closs et al, 2004;Gagliese et al, 2005;Peters et al, 2007). Thus, convergent validity was assessed by calculating Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between the VDS and each of the four pain scales.…”

Section: Factor Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Psychometric properties of pain intensity scales comparing among postoperative adult patients, elderly patients without and with mild cognitive impairment in China

Zhou

Petpichetchian

Kitrungrote

2011

International Journal of Nursing Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In China, there is a lack of studies to generate pain intensity scales to the patients with CI and compare the pain scales in various age groups. Therefore, this study would compare the psychometric properties of the evidence-supported pain intensity scales consisting of the Verbal Descriptor Scale (VDS), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Faces Pain Scale (FPS), the Numeric Box-21 Scale (BS-21), and the Colored Analogue Scale (CAS) in Chinese postoperative adults varying in ages including the elderly with mild CI. This was a descriptive comparative study and 200 surgical patients were recruited purposively from a university-affiliated hospital with 50 for each group: young adults (age 20 -44 years), middle-aged adults (age 45 -59 years), elderly (age ≥ 60 years) without CI, and elderly (age ≥ 60 years) with mild CI.Participants rated the vividly remembered, current, worst, least, and average pain, and indicated scale preference and simplicity. Scale face validity, concurrent validity, convergent validity, and test-retest reliability at a 3-day interval were assessed. Fisher's exact tests were used to investigate whether face validity was related to different age iv groups and the levels of CI. One-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to test the differences of concurrent validity, convergent validity, and test-retest reliability of each pain scale among the four groups. Regarding face validity, the FPS was ranked best across the subjects as nearly half of the patients selected it as both the most preferred and simplest and it had low errors; the VDS and the NRS were similar and ranked following the FPS; however, the BS-21 and the CAS were ranked last. The concurrent validity, convergent validity, and test-retest reliability of all five pain scales were supported in use with the four groups. The differences in psychometric properties among the four groups were only found in face validity. The findings support the psychometric properties of all five pain scales for pain assessment in Chinese adults including the elderly with mild CI. However, the FPS appears to be the best scale followed by the VDS and the NRS. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIt is impossible to finish this work without the continuous help and love from the people around me. I take this opportunity to give thanks to them for their willing to teach, guidance, help, and care during my master degree study.

show abstract

Section: Unidimensional Assessment Tools Based On Self-reportmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Background and Significance Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%