CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Pain Management and Opioid UsePsychometric Methodologies and TestingGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes

Correspondence of verbal descriptor and numeric rating scales for pain intensity: an item response theory calibration

Edelen, M. O., Saliba, D.·2010·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
DOI 10.1093/gerona/glp215
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Assessing pain intensity in older adults is critical and challenging. There is debate about the most effective way to ask older adults to describe their pain severity, and clinicians vary in their preferred approaches, making comparison of pain intensity scores across settings difficult. METHODS: A total of 3,676 residents from 71 community nursing homes across eight states were asked about pain presence. The 1,960 residents who reported pain within the past 5 days (53% of total, 70% female; age: M = 77.9, SD = 12.4) were included in analyses. Those who reported pain were also asked to provide a rating of pain intensity using either a verbal descriptor scale (VDS; mild, moderate, severe, and very severe and horrible), a numeric rating scale (NRS; 0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain imaginable), or both. We used item response theory (IRT) methods to identify the correspondence between the VDS and the NRS response options by estimating item parameters for these and five additional pain items. RESULTS: The sample reported moderate amounts of pain on average. Examination of the IRT location parameters for the pain intensity items indicated the following approximate correspondence: VDS mild approximately NRS 1-4, VDS moderate approximately NRS 5-7, VDS severe approximately NRS 8-9, and VDS very severe, horrible approximately NRS 10. CONCLUSION: This IRT calibration provides a crosswalk between the two response scales so that either can be used in practice depending on the preference of the clinician and respondent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/gerona/glp215

Cites

45 of 45 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 items used for impact stratification (pain intensity, pain interference, and functional status) have substantial research support for their discriminatory and prognostic importance.

    “These items have substantial research support to validate their discriminatory and prognostic importance. 13, 19, 31, 38, 39, 43, 47–49, 53, 54, 57–60, 66–68, 73, 76, 80, 82, 85, 86, 97, 106, 108, 110, 112–116, 122”

    From Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain. (2014) · cites this paper as [43]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Edelen, M. O., & Saliba, D.
Affiliations
RAND Corporation (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2010-01-27
Volume
65A
Issue
7
Pages
778-785
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
DOI
10.1093/gerona/glp215
OpenAlex
W2097763833
Cited by
68
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series A (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Topics
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Keywords
pain intensity, Verbal Descriptor Scale, numerical rating scale, older adults, nursing home residents, pain assessment
MeSH terms
Aged, Calibration, Female, Homes for the Aged, Humans, Male, Nursing Homes, Pain, Pain Measurement, Reference Values

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