The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Psychometric Testing of the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS): A New Pain Scale for Military Population
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS 2.0) is a pain assessment tool that utilizes a numerical rating scale enhanced by functional word descriptors, color coding, and pictorial facial expressions matched to pain levels. Four supplemental questions measure how much pain interferes with usual activity and sleep, and affects mood and contributes to stress. METHODS: Psychometric testing was performed on a revised DVPRS 2.0 using data from 307 active duty service members and Veterans experiencing acute or chronic pain. A new set of facial representations designating pain levels was tested. RESULTS: Results demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.871) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.637 to r = 0.774) for the five items. Excellent interrater agreement was established for correctly ordering faces depicting pain levels and aligning them on the pain intensity scale (Kendall's coefficient of concordance, W = 0.95 and 0.959, respectively). Construct validity was supported by an exploratory principal component factor analysis and known groups validity testing. Most participants, 70.9%, felt that the DVPRS was superior to other pain rating scales. CONSCLUSION: The DVPRS 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument that provides standard language and metrics to communicate pain and related outcomes.
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
Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory.
Cs, C., & Km, R. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 5,178
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., et al. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011 · Cited by 5,128
Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain
Woolf, C. J. (2011) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.09.030 · Cited by 4,771
The Faces Pain Scale – Revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement
Hicks, C. L., von Baeyer, C. L., Spafford, P. A., van Korlaar, I. M., & Goodenough, B. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00314-1 · Cited by 2,061
Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures
Farrar, J. T., Portenoy, R. K., Berlin, J. A., Kinman, J. L., & Strom, B. L. (2000) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00339-0 · Cited by 1,071
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
Lew, H. L., Otis, J. D., Tun, C., Kerns, R. D., Clark, M. E., & Cifu, D. X. (2009) · The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2009.01.0006 · Cited by 655
What Is Sufficient Evidence for the Reliability and Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures?
Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., & Hays, R. D. (2007) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x · Cited by 572
Burch, R. C., Loder, S., Loder, E., & Smitherman, T. A. (2015) · Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · doi:10.1111/head.12482 · Cited by 497
Measuring pain as the 5th vital sign does not improve quality of pain management
Mularski, R. A., White-Chu, F., Overbay, D., Miller, L. L., Asch, S. M., & Ganzini, L. K. (2006) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00415.x · Cited by 349
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Stratford, 2001, The reliability, consistency, and clinical application of a numeric pain rating scale, Physiother Can, 53, 88
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mariano, E. R., Dickerson, D. M., Szokol, J. W., Harned, M. E., Mueller, J. T., Philip, B. K., Baratta, J. L., Gulur, P., Robles, J., Schroeder, K. M., et al. (2021) · Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · doi:10.1136/rapm-2021-103083 · Cited by 114
Yajnik, M., Hill, J. N., Hunter, O. O., Howard, S. K., Kim, T. E., Harrison, T. K., & Mariano, E. R. (2018) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.09.001 · Cited by 93
Clinical Practice Guideline: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations
Anne, S., Mims, J. “., Tunkel, D. E., Rosenfeld, R. M., Boisoneau, D. S., Brenner, M. J., Cramer, J. D., Dickerson, D. M., Finestone, S. A., Folbe, A. J., et al. (2021) · Otolaryngology · doi:10.1177/0194599821996297 · Cited by 94
Bokhour, B. G., Hyde, J. K., Kligler, B., Gelman, H. M., Gaj, L., Barker, A. M., Douglas, J. H., DeFaccio, R., Taylor, S. L., & Zeliadt, S. B. (2022) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13938 · Cited by 66
McGeary, D. D., Resick, P. A., Penzien, D. B., McGeary, C. A., Houle, T. T., Eapen, B. C., Jaramillo, C. A., Nabity, P. S., Reed, D. E., Moring, J. C., et al. (2022) · JAMA Neurology · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.1567 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Polomano, R. C., Galloway, K. T., Kent, M. L., Brandon-Edwards, H., Kwon, K. “., Morales, C., & Buckenmaier, C. ‘.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Henry M. Jackson Foundation (US)
- Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- Pain Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-06-06
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1505-1519
- ISSN
- 1526-2375 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-4637
- OpenAlex
- W2414119946
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 13.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- Pain Medicine (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Henry M. Jackson Foundation
- Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Keywords
- pain scales, pain assessment, military personnel, veterans, chronic pain, acute pain, facial expressions, numerical rating scale, psychometric validation, reliability statistics, construct validity, known-groups validity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Veterans, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult
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
