THE MEASUREMENT OF CLINICAL PAIN INTENSITY - A COMPARISON OF 6 METHODS
THE MEASUREMENT OF CLINICAL PAIN INTENSITY - A COMPARISON OF 6 METHODS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9
复制
发表时间：
1986-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
BRAVER, S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
JENSEN, MP;KAROLY, P;BRAVER, S
主观疼痛强度的测量仍然是重要的研究人员和临床医生。虽然目前有几种量表用于评估强度结构，但仍不清楚哪种量表提供了最精确、可复制和预测有效的测量。在以前的研究中，已经考虑了五个判断强度量表的标准：（a）评分的容易程度;（B）不正确反应的相对比率;（c）由可用反应类别的数量定义的灵敏度;（d）由统计功效定义的灵敏度;以及（e）每个量表与疼痛强度指数的线性组合之间的关系的大小。为了判断常用的疼痛强度措施，75例慢性疼痛患者被要求使用6个量表对4种疼痛（存在，最小，最大和平均）进行评分。使用上述标准判断量表的实用性和有效性。结果表明，对于本样本，规模产生类似的结果，在受试者的数量谁正确地回应他们和他们的预测效度。然而，在考虑其余3项标准时，101点数字评级表似乎是最实用的指数。
The measurement of subjective pain intensity continues to be important to both researchers and clinicians. Although several scales are currently used to asses 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: (a) ease of administration of scoring; (b) relative rates of incorrect responding; (c) sensitivity as defined by the number of available response categories: (d) sensitivity as defined by statistical power; and (e) the magnitude of the relationship between each scale and a linear combination of pain intensity indices. In order to judge commonly used pain intensity measures, 75 chronic pain patients were asked to rate 4 kinds of pain (present, least, most, and average) using 6 scales. 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.