Articles: pain-measurement.
-
This paper describes the development and preliminary validation of a questionnaire designed to assess five attitudes considered important in the long-term adjustment of chronic pain patients. The specific subscales of the questionnaire were chosen to represent attitudes believed to influence the ways by which chronic pain patients manage their pain. Following the development of five reliable subscales, correlations of the subscales with self-reported pain behaviors and coping strategies were calculated, providing preliminary support for the concurrent validity of the instrument.
-
In order to determine the relationship between trigger point sensitivity and the referred symptoms of myofascial pain, VAS ratings of referred pain intensity and pressure algometer measures of myofascial trigger point sensitivity were taken pre and post treatment of the muscle containing the trigger point with passive stretch. The results in 20 subjects, experiencing unilateral or bilateral myofascial head and neck pain, showed that myofascial trigger point sensitivity decreases in response to passive stretch as assessed by the pressure algometer, and that trigger point sensitivity and intensity of referred pain are related.
-
Comparative Study
The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods.
The measurement of subjective pain intensity continues to be important to both researchers and clinicians. Although several scales are currently used to assess the intensity construct, it remains unclear which of these provides the most precise, replicable, and predictively valid measure. Five criteria for judging intensity scales have been considered in previous research: ease of administration of scoring; relative rates of incorrect responding; sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories; sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and the magnitude of the relationship between each scale and a linear combination of pain intensity indices. ⋯ The utility and validity of the scales was judged using the criteria listed above. The results indicate that, for the present sample, the scales yield similar results in terms of the number of subjects who respond correctly to them and their predictive validity. However, when considering the remaining 3 criteria, the 101-point numerical rating scale appears to be the most practical index.