The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures.
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).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The SOPA-32 is a well-validated 32-item measure with seven subscales that measure strength of endorsement of pain-related beliefs”
From An Online Self-help CBT Intervention for Chronic Lower Back Pain (2012) · cites this paper as [40]
Citations
Cites
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
Sitgreaves, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 14,384
Essentials of Psychological Testing
Rosner, B., & Cronbach, L. J. (1960) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1419921 · Cited by 4,524
The short-form McGill pain questionnaire
Melzack, R. (1987) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(87)91074-8 · Cited by 4,368
Serlin, R. C., Mendoza, T. R., Nakamura, Y., Edwards, K. R., & Cleeland, C. S. (1995) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)00178-h · Cited by 1,493
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
Increasing the reliability and validity of pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients
Jensen, M. P., & McFarland, C. A. (1993) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(93)90148-i · Cited by 720
Self-citationThe use of pain scales in assessing the efficacy of analgesics in post-operative dental pain
Seymour, R. A. (1982) · European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00605995 · Cited by 258
Max, M. B., Schafer, S. C., Culnane, M., Dubner, R. A., & Gracely, R. H. (1988) · Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1038/clpt.1988.44 · Cited by 247
The use of multiple-item scales for pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients
Jensen, M. P., Turner, L. R., Turner, J. A., & Romano, J. M. (1996) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(96)03078-3 · Cited by 227
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Salovey, 1993, Am Pain Soc J, 2, 184
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Validity of four pain intensity rating scales
Ferreira-Valente, M. A., Pais-Ribeiro, J. L., & Jensen, M. P. (2011) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.005 · Cited by 1,872
Self-citationResponsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain
Childs, J. D., Piva, S. R., & Fritz, J. M. (2005) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 · Cited by 1,481
“The 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) is a measure of pain in which patients rate their pain ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), and it has been shown to have concurrent and predictive validity as a measure of pain intensity.(2,5) Although the NPRS is widely used as an outcome measure in…”
MethodChiarotto, A., Maxwell, L. J., Ostelo, R., Boers, M., Tugwell, P., & Terwee, C. B. (2018) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2018.07.009 · Cited by 780
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
“, composites of average, least, worst, and current pain) can yield modest improvements in measurement properties relative to a single rating.(20,44,45)”
BackgroundBoonstra, A. M., Stewart, R. E., Köke, A. J. A., Oosterwijk, R. F. A., Swaan, J. L., Schreurs, K. M. G., & Preuper, H. R. S. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01466 · Cited by 666
“The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is regarded as one of the best single-itemmethods available to estimate the intensity of pain (Jensen et al., 1999; Breivik et al., 2000).”
Metadata
- 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 › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › 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
