The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of verbal and visual analogue scales for measuring the intensity and unpleasantness of experimental pain
Abstract
Although the multidimensional nature of pain is now well recognized, there are, nevertheless, very few quantitative tests to measure the separate dimensions of pain and little data concerning their relative sensitivity. The present study compares 2 currently available methods, verbal descriptor and visual analogue scales. Eight subjects rated painful and near-painful heat stimuli by using visual analogue scales for intensity or unpleasantness and by choosing the most appropriate phrases from lists of intensity or unpleasantness descriptors. In the intensity dimension, the relationship between perception and stimulus temperature was essentially identical whether calculated from the visual analogue or verbal descriptor scales. However, data derived from the verbal descriptor scales revealed that subjects rated the painful temperatures as relatively more intense than unpleasant; this difference could not be detected using the visual analogue scales. These results confirm that both visual analogue and verbal descriptor techniques successfully quantify sensory intensity and affective aspects of pain, but that verbal descriptors may provide the more sensitive tool for separating intensity and unpleasantness.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain
Price, D. D., McGrath, P. A., Rafii, A., & Buckingham, B. (1983) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4 · Cited by 3,921
Ohnhaus, E. E., & Adler, R. (1975) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(75)90075-5 · Cited by 797
Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors
Gracely, R. H., McGrath, P., & Dubner, R. (1978) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(78)90020-9 · Cited by 553
Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain
Joyce, C. R. B., Zutshi, D. W., Hrubes, V., & Mason, R. M. (1975) · European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00562315 · Cited by 539
Cited by
A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena
Wewers, M. E., & Lowe, N. K. (1990) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.4770130405 · Cited by 2,580
FRANCIS, C. Y., MORRIS, J., & WHORWELL, P. J. (1997) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.1997.142318000.x · Cited by 1,708
Price, D. D., Bush, F. M., Long, S., & Harkins, S. W. (1994) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3 · Cited by 1,174
Lonsdorf, T. B., Menz, M. M., Andreatta, M., Fullana, M. A., Golkar, A., Haaker, J., Heitland, I., Hermann, A., Kuhn, M., Kruse, O., et al. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.02.026 · Cited by 837
Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research
Von Korff, M., Jensen, M. P., & Karoly, P. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00009 · Cited by 649
Metadata
- Authors
- Duncan, G. H., Bushnell, C. M., & Lavigne, G. J.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1989-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 295-303
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2047254185
- Cited by
- 235
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of verbal and visual analogue scales for measuring the intensity and unpleasantness of experimental pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(89)90194-2
- The paper
- Duncan, G. H., Bushnell, C. M., & Lavigne, G. J. (1989). Comparison of verbal and visual analogue scales for measuring the intensity and unpleasantness of experimental pain. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(89)90194-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.