The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and psychometric testing of an instrument designed to measure chronic pain in dogs with osteoarthritis
Open accessAbstract
Objective—To develop and psychometrically test an owner self-administered questionnaire designed to assess severity and impact of chronic pain in dogs with osteoarthritis. Sample Population—70 owners of dogs with osteoarthritis and 50 owners of clinically normal dogs. Procedures—Standard methods for the stepwise development and testing of instruments designed to assess subjective states were used. Items were generated through focus groups and an expert panel. Items were tested for readability and ambiguity, and poorly performing items were removed. The reduced set of items was subjected to factor analysis, reliability testing, and validity testing. Results—Severity of pain and interference with function were 2 factors identified and named on the basis of the items contained in them. Cronbach's α was 0.93 and 0.89, respectively, suggesting that the items in each factor could be assessed as a group to compute factor scores (ie, severity score and interference score). The test-retest analysis revealed κ values of 0.75 for the severity score and 0.81 for the interference score. Scores correlated moderately well (r = 0.51 and 0.50, respectively) with the overall quality-of-life (QOL) question, such that as severity and interference scores increased, QOL decreased. Clinically normal dogs had significantly lower severity and interference scores than dogs with osteoarthritis. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—A psychometrically sound instrument was developed. Responsiveness testing must be conducted to determine whether the questionnaire will be useful in reliably obtaining quantifiable assessments from owners regarding the severity and impact of chronic pain and its treatment on dogs with osteoarthritis.
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
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/jyj1-4868 · Cited by 10,297
Flesch, R. (1948) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0057532 · Cited by 5,391
The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life
Hays, R. D., & Morales, L. S. (2001) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.3109/07853890109002089 · Cited by 1,460 · cited 1×
“Methods for the development and psychometric testing of instruments are the same regardless of whether the instrument is to be used for self-assessment or proxy reporting.(10-13,15,18-37) Although a self-assessment instrument (ie, the BPI) was used as a template for the CBPI, the interference items were generated and…”
Method
Cited by
Walton, M. B., Cowderoy, E., Lascelles, D., & Innes, J. F. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058125 · Cited by 297
Hekman, J. P., Karas, A. Z., & Dreschel, N. A. (2012) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.08.007 · Cited by 105
A comparison of uniaxial and triaxial accelerometers for the assessment of physical activity in dogs
Cheung, K. W., Starling, M. J., & McGreevy, P. D. (2014) · Journal of Veterinary Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2013.11.003 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, D. C., Boston, R. C., Coyne, J. C., & Farrar, J. T.
- Venue
- American Journal of Veterinary Research
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 631-637
- ISSN
- 0002-9645 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096746754
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and psychometric testing of an instrument designed to measure chronic pain in dogs with osteoarthritis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2460/ajvr.68.6.631
- The paper
- Brown, D. C., Boston, R. C., Coyne, J. C., & Farrar, J. T. (2007). Development and psychometric testing of an instrument designed to measure chronic pain in dogs with osteoarthritis. American Journal of Veterinary Research. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.68.6.631
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.