The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire: validation and reliability in postal research
Abstract
The Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire has been proposed as an interview-administered, multi-dimensional measure of chronic pain severity in selected populations with chronic pain in the United States of America. It has not previously been tested in the United Kingdom, in self-completion form or in an unselected general population. We undertook a postal survey to assess its reliability, validity and acceptability in these circumstances, using a general practice population in Scotland, with a practice population of 11202 patients. A random sample of 400 patients aged over 18 was drawn, stratified for age, gender and receipt or non-receipt of regular prescriptions for pain-relieving medication. The dimensions and sub-scales of the Chronic Pain Grade were compared with the SF-36 general health questionnaire and questions relating to duration of any pain and attempts to seek treatment for this. The methodological approach proposed by Streiner and Norman (1989) was used to assess validity and reliability. A response rate of 76% was achieved. Cronbach's alpha was > 0.9 and item-total correlations were all high, indicating good internal consistency and reliability. Validity was confirmed by psychometric testing, including confirmatory factor analysis. Good correlations with comparable dimensions of the SF-36 general health questionnaire confirmed convergent validity. Construct validity was confirmed by testing scores against duration of pain and treatment sought for pain. We concluded that the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire is a useful, reliable and valid measure of severity of chronic pain. It translates well into UK English and is acceptable in general population postal research.
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
Graded chronic pain status—An epidemiologic evaluation
Von Korff, M., Dworkin, S. F., & Le Resche, L. (1990) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(90)91125-3 · Cited by 488
Cited by
Hawker, G. A., Mian, S., Kendzerska, T., & French, M. (2011) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/acr.20543 · Cited by 4,924
Prevalence of chronic pain in the UK: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population studies
Fayaz, A., Croft, P., Langford, R. M., Donaldson, L. J., & Jones, G. T. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010364 · Cited by 1,355
The epidemiology of chronic pain in the community
Elliott, A. M., Smith, B. H., Penny, K. I., Cairns Smith, W., & Alastair Chambers, W. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)03057-3 · Cited by 1,208
Self-citationKrebs, E. E., Lorenz, K. A., Bair, M. J., Damush, T. M., Wu, J., Sutherland, J. M., Asch, S. M., & Kroenke, K. (2009) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-009-0981-1 · Cited by 782
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
- Smith, B. H., Penny, K. I., Purves, A. M., Munro, C., Wilson, B., Grimshaw, J., Chambers, A. W., & Smith, C. W.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 141-147
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2015436382
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.51
- 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: The Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire: validation and reliability in postal research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)03347-2
- The paper
- Smith, B. H., Penny, K. I., Purves, A. M., Munro, C., Wilson, B., Grimshaw, J., Chambers, A. W., & Smith, C. W. (1997). The Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire: validation and reliability in postal research. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)03347-2
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.