Cited by 427Pain Management and Opioid UseCancer survivorship and carePediatric Pain Management Techniques

The validity and reliability of pain measures in adults with cancer

Open access
Jensen, Mark P.·2003·The Journal of Pain

Abstract

To be most useful, clinical trials of cancer pain treatments should use pain measures that are both reliable and valid. A great variety of measures are now available that may be used to assess cancer pain. However, there are not yet any clear guidelines for selecting one or more measures over the others. The purpose of this article is to summarize the evidence concerning the validity and reliability of cancer pain measures. One hundred sixty-four articles were identified that provided psychometric data of pain measures among patients with cancer. The results indicate that commonly used single-item ratings of pain intensity are all valid and adequately reliable as measures of pain intensity, although some scales appear to be easier for patients with cancer to understand and to use than others. Multiple-item measures of pain intensity are reliable, but evidence concerning their validity is lacking. There is a paucity of research examining the psychometric properties of measures of cancer pain interference, pain relief, pain site, the temporal aspects of pain, and pain quality. This lack of evidence limits the conclusions that may be drawn concerning the reliability and validity of these other pain measures. Composite measures that combine ratings of pain intensity and pain interference into a single score appear to be both valid and reliable for describing patient populations, although their usefulness in clinical trials may be limited because they can obscure the contributions of intensity and interference to the total score. Proxy measures of cancer pain (pain ratings made by someone other than the patient) may be useful when patients are not able to provide pain ratings, but they should not be used as replacements for patient ratings when patient self-report measures are available. The discussion includes specific recommendations for selecting from among the available pain measures, as well as recommendations for future research into the assessment of cancer pain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1054/jpai.2003.1

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jensen, M. P.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Jensen, Mark P.
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-02
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
2-21
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969092046
Cited by
427
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 31
FWCI
10.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
cancer pain, pain assessment, psychometric properties, validity, reliability statistics, pain intensity, pain interference, analgesia, patient self-report, clinical trial outcome measures
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Pain, Pain Measurement, Reproducibility of Results

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