Cited by 1,247Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UsePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures.

Jensen, Mark P, Turner, Judith A, Romano, Joan M, Fisher, Lloyd D·1999·Pain

Abstract

Reliable and valid measures of pain are essential for conducting research on chronic pain. The purpose of this longitudinal study was to compare the reliability and validity of several measures of pain intensity. One hundred twenty-three patients with chronic pain were administered telephone interview versions of 0-10 scales of current, worst, least and average pain, immediately prior to beginning a multidisciplinary treatment program. The measures were administered again to these subjects 2 weeks (n=108), 1 month (n=106) and 2 months (n=105) after the end of treatment. The validity (defined as ability to detect changes in pain intensity over the course of treatment up to the 2-month follow-up assessment) and reliability (defined as stability over time in the 2 months after treatment) of these four measures and of composite combinations of these measures were examined. Contrary to prediction, the composite measures did not show a statistically significant superiority to the individual ratings in terms of their ability to detect change in pain intensity from pre-treatment to various points after treatment. The composite scores did, however, show greater stability than did the individual ratings after treatment. The practical conclusions of this study are; (1), individual 0-10 pain intensity ratings have sufficient psychometric strengths to be used in chronic pain research, especially research that involves group comparison designs with relatively large sample sizes, but, (2), composites of 0-10 ratings may be more useful when maximal reliability is necessary, (e.g. in studies with relatively small sample sizes, or in clinical settings where monitoring of changes in pain intensity in individuals is needed).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00101-3

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • The SOPA-32 is a well-validated 32-item measure with seven subscales that measure strength of endorsement of pain-related beliefs.

    “The SOPA-32 is a well-validated 32-item measure with seven subscales that measure strength of endorsement of pain-related beliefs”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jensen, M. P., Turner, J. A., Romano, J. M., & Fisher, L. D.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Jensen, Mark P
Venue
Pain
Published
1999-11
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
157-162
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009568727
Cited by
1,247
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 52
FWCI
6.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Public Health Service (R01 31683)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
chronic pain, pain intensity assessment, reliability statistics, validity, multidisciplinary pain management, longitudinal change detection
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Analgesics, Analysis of Variance, Chronic Disease, Counseling, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Therapy, Pain, Pain Measurement, Patient Care Team, Psychotherapy, Socioeconomic Factors, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Physical Therapy Modalities, Pain Management

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