Test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain

Ahmad H Alghadir, Shahnawaz Anwer, Amir Iqbal, Zaheen Ahmed Iqbal, Ahmad H Alghadir, Shahnawaz Anwer, Amir Iqbal, Zaheen Ahmed Iqbal

Abstract

Objective: Several scales are commonly used for assessing pain intensity. Among them, the numerical rating scale (NRS), visual analog scale (VAS), and verbal rating scale (VRS) are often used in clinical practice. However, no study has performed psychometric analyses of their reliability and validity in the measurement of osteoarthritic (OA) pain. Therefore, the present study examined the test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change (MDC) of the VAS, NRS, and VRS for the measurement of OA knee pain. In addition, the correlations of VAS, NRS, and VRS with demographic variables were evaluated.

Methods: The study included 121 subjects (65 women, 56 men; aged 40-80 years) with OA of the knee. Test-retest reliability of the VAS, NRS, and VRS was assessed during two consecutive visits in a 24 h interval. The validity was tested using Pearson's correlation coefficients between the baseline scores of VAS, NRS, and VRS and the demographic variables (age, body mass index [BMI], sex, and OA grade). The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the MDC were calculated to assess statistically meaningful changes.

Results: The intraclass correlation coefficients of the VAS, NRS, and VRS were 0.97, 0.95, and 0.93, respectively. VAS, NRS, and VRS were significantly related to demographic variables (age, BMI, sex, and OA grade). The SEM of VAS, NRS, and VRS was 0.03, 0.48, and 0.21, respectively. The MDC of VAS, NRS, and VRS was 0.08, 1.33, and 0.58, respectively.

Conclusion: All the three scales had excellent test-retest reliability. However, the VAS was the most reliable, with the smallest errors in the measurement of OA knee pain.

Keywords: knee; numerical rating scale; osteoarthritis; pain; verbal rating scale; visual analog scale.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bland–Altman plot: intraindividual differences (n = 121) between the visual analog scale (VAS) on test and retest, plotted against the average of the two scores. Note: The central line represents the mean difference, and the dashed lines display the 95% limit of agreement.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland–Altman plot: intraindividual differences (n = 121) between the numerical rating scale (NRS) on test and retest, plotted against the average of the two scores. Note: The central line represents the mean difference, and the dashed lines display the 95% limit of agreement.

References

    1. Jan MH, Lin CH, Lin YF, Lin JJ, Lin DH. Effects of weight-bearing versus nonweight-bearing exercise on function, walking speed, and position sense in participants with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(6):897–904.
    1. Thomas KS, Muir KR, Doherty M, Jones AC, O’Reilly SC, Bassey EJ. Home based exercise program for knee pain and knee osteoarthritis: randomized controlled trial. Br Med J. 2002;325(7367):752–757.
    1. Bruce-Brand RA, Walls RJ, Ong JC, Emerson BS, O’Byrne JM, Moyna NM. Effects of home-based resistance training and neuromuscular electrical stimulation in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:118.
    1. Sled EA, Khoja L, Deluzio KJ, Olney SJ, Culham EG. Effect of a home program of hip abductor exercises on knee joint loading, strength, function, and pain in people with knee osteoarthritis: a clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2010;90(6):895–904.
    1. Chaipinyo K, Karoonsupcharoen O. No difference between home-based strength training and home-based balance training on pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized trial. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(1):25–30.
    1. Bezalel T, Carmeli E, Katz-Leurer M. The effect of a group education programme on pain and function through knowledge acquisition and home-based exercise among patients with knee osteoarthritis: a parallel randomized single-blind clinical trial. Physiotherapy. 2010;96(2):137–143.
    1. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, et al. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;41(6):1073–1093.
    1. Jensen MP, Karoly P. Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Turk DC, Melzack R, editors. Handbook of Pain Assessment. New York: Guilford Press; 2011. pp. 19–44.
    1. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. IMMPACT Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):9–19.
    1. Gagliese L. Assessment of pain in elderly people. In: Turk DC, Melzack R, editors. Handbook of Pain Assessment. New York: Guilford Press; 2002. pp. 119–133.
    1. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1975;1(4):379–384.
    1. Woodforde JM, Merskey H. Some relationships between subjective measures of pain. J Psychosom Res. 1972;16(3):173–178.
    1. Chanques G, Viel E, Constantin JM, et al. The measurement of pain in intensive care unit: comparison of 5 self-report intensity scales. Pain. 2010;151(3):711–721.
    1. Dijkers M. Comparing quantification of pain severity by verbal rating and numeric rating scales. J Spinal Cord Med. 2010;33(3):232–242.
    1. Hartrick CT, Kovan JP, Shapiro S. The numeric rating scale for clinical pain measurement: a ratio measure? Pain Pract. 2003;3(4):310–316.
    1. Gallasch CH, Alexandre NM. The measurement of musculoskeletal pain intensity: a comparison of four methods. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2007;28(2):260–265.
    1. Taylor LJ, Harris J, Epps CD, Herr K. Psychometric evaluation of selected pain intensity scales for use with cognitively impaired and cognitively intact older adults. Rehabil Nurs. 2005;30(2):55–61.
    1. Farrar JT, Young JP, Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149–158.
    1. Chien CW, Bagraith KS, Khan A, Deen M, Strong J. Comparative responsiveness of verbal and numerical rating scales to measure pain intensity in patients with chronic pain. J Pain. 2013;14(12):1653–1662.
    1. Lund I, Lundeberg T, Sandberg L, Budh CN, Kowalski J, Svensson E. Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:31.
    1. Bashir MS, Khade A, Borkar P, Saleem M, Lingaswamy V, Reddy D. A comparative study between different pain rating scales in patients of osteoarthritis. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2013;57(2):205–208.
    1. Bellamy N, Campbell J, Syrotuik J. Comparative study of self-rating pain scales in osteoarthritis patients. Curr Med Res Opin. 1999;15(2):113–119.
    1. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiologic assessment of osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957;16(4):494–502.
    1. Seymour RA. The use of pain scales in assessing the efficacy of analgesics on postoperative dental pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1982;23(5):441–444.
    1. Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14(7):798–804.
    1. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP) Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63(Suppl 11):S240–S252.
    1. Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993;2(3):221–226.
    1. Wyrwich KW, Wolinsky FD. Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000;6(1):39–49.
    1. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 2nd ed. Norwalk: Appleton & Lange; 2000.
    1. Ferraz MB, Quaresma MR, Aquino LRL, Atra E, Tugwell P, Goldsmith CH. Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1990;17(8):1022–1024.
    1. Allen KD, Coffman CJ, Golightly YM, Stechuchak KM, Voils CI, Keefe FJ. Comparison of pain measures among patients with osteoarthritis. J Pain. 2010;11(6):522–527.
    1. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000;30(1):1–15.
    1. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30(11):1331–1334.
    1. Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978;37(4):378–381.
    1. Bolognese JA, Schnitzer TJ, Ehrich EW. Response relationship of VAS and Likert scales in osteoarthritis efficacy measurement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11(7):499–507.
    1. Averbuch M, Katzper M. Assessment of visual analog versus categorical scale for measurement of osteoarthritis pain. J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;44(4):368–372.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever