Cited by 3,275Pain Management and Opioid UseMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPediatric Pain Management Techniques

The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods

Jensen, Mark P., Karoly, Paul, Braver, Sanford·1986·Pain

Abstract

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. 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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jensen, M. P., Karoly, P., & Braver, S.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Pain
Published
1986-10
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
117-126
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064475745
Cited by
3,275
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 110 · 2025: 119 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 155 · 2020: 149 · 2019: 143 · 2018: 130 · 2017: 119 · 2016: 114 · 2015: 106 · 2014: 112 · 2013: 120 · 2012: 118
FWCI
13.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
pain intensity assessment, pain intensity scales, chronic pain, numerical rating scale, scale validity, predictive validity, scale sensitivity
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review