Psychometric evaluation of a visual analog scale for the assessment of anxiety
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Fast-acting medications for the management of anxiety are important to patients and society. Measuring early onset, however, requires a sensitive and clinically responsive tool. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of a patient-reported Global Anxiety-Visual Analog Scale (GA-VAS). METHODS: Data from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of lorazepam and paroxetine in patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder were analyzed to assess the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and utility of the GA-VAS. The GA-VAS was completed at clinic visits and at home during the first week of treatment. Targeted psychometric analyses--test-retest reliabilities, validity correlations, responsiveness statistics, and minimum important differences--were conducted. RESULTS: The GA-VAS correlates well with other anxiety measures, at Week 4, r=0.60 (p<0.0001) with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety and r=0.74 (p<0.0001) with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale. In terms of convergent and divergent validity, the GA-VAS correlated -0.54 (p<0.0001), -0.48 (p<0.0001), and -0.68 (p<0.0001) with the SF-36 Emotional Role, Social Function, and Mental Health subscales, respectively, but correlated much lower with the SF-36 physical functioning subscales. Preliminary minimum important difference estimates cluster between 10 and 15 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The GA-VAS is capable of validly and effectively capturing a reduction in anxiety as quickly as 24 hours post-dose.
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
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.
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 visual analog scale showed good convergent validity for measuring anxiety and depression, with Pearson's coefficients ranging between 0.60 and 0.74.
“Although the VAS is not a common approach for investigating emotional distress, the use of this tool showed good convergent validity for measuring anxiety and depression through established correlations with other empirically validated instruments, with the obtained Pearson’s coefficients ranging between 0.60 and 0.74 [43,44].”
From Personality and Pain Outcomes in Rheumatic Disease: The Mediating Role of Psychological Flexibility (2024) · cites this paper as [43]
The Abstract Results report Week 4 correlations of 0.60 and 0.74 with two anxiety measures. The Results > Psychometric Study section describes these as evidence of convergent validity for anxiety, but treats the depression subscale as a comparison for divergent validity. This paper therefore does not support the claim that those coefficients establish convergent validity for measuring depression. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe VAS for anxiety correlated with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (r = 0.60) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale (r = 0.74).
“Finally, the same approach tested for anxiety led to equivalent results in terms of validity, as indicated by the correlations between VAS and other renowned tools, such as the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (r = 0.60), or the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—Anxiety subscale (r = 0.74) [77].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 287
- Authors
- Williams, V. S., Morlock, R. J., & Feltner, D.
- Affiliations
- RTI Health Solutions (US)
- Pfizer (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, Valerie SL
- Venue
- Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57
- ISSN
- 1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2904728
- OpenAlex
- W2074123391
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 9.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Pfizer
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Keywords
- visual analogue scale, anxiety assessment, generalized anxiety disorder, psychometric properties, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, responsiveness, minimal clinically important difference, lorazepam, paroxetine, patient-reported outcomes, early treatment response
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Female, Humans, Lorazepam, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Paroxetine
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