Psychometric evaluation of a visual analog scale for the assessment of anxiety

Valerie S L Williams, Robert J Morlock, Douglas Feltner, Valerie S L Williams, Robert J Morlock, Douglas Feltner

Abstract

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.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The GA-VAS. Please complete this form at a regular time each day, preferably just before going to bed, and consider the whole of the previous 24-hour period.

References

    1. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. Palliat Care. 1991;7:6–9.
    1. Kremer E, Atkinson JH, Ignelzi RJ. Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain. 1981;10:241–248. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(81)90199-8.
    1. Scott J, Huskisson EC. Graphic representation of pain. Pain. 1976;2(2):175–184. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(76)90113-5.
    1. deBoer AGEM, van Lanschot JJB, Stalmeier PFM, van Sandick JW, Hulscher JBF, de Haes JCJM, Sprangers MAG. Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Qual Life Res. 2004;13:311–320. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018499.64574.1f.
    1. Hyland ME, Sodergren SC. Development of a new type of global quality of life scale, and comparison of performance and preference for 12 global scales. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:469–480. doi: 10.1007/BF00540019.
    1. Lingjaerde O, Foreland AR. Direct assessment of improvement in winter depression with a visual analogue scale: high reliability and validity. Psychiatry Res. 1998;81:387–392. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1781(98)00119-X.
    1. Mortimore C, Anderson IM. d-Fenfluramine in panic disorder: a dual role for 5-hydroxytryptamine. Psychopharmacology. 2000;149:251–258. doi: 10.1007/s002139900342.
    1. Steiner M, Streiner DL. Validation of a revised visual analogue scale for premenstrual mood symptoms: results from prospective and retrospective trials. Can J Psychiatry. 2005;50(6):327–332.
    1. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MI. The reliability of linear analogue scales for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia. 1976;31(9):1191–1198. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1976.tb11971.x.
    1. Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13(4):227–236. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770130405.
    1. Dixon JS, Bird HA. Reproducibility along a 10 cm vertical visual analogue scale. Ann Rheum Dis. 1981;40(1):87–89. doi: 10.1136/ard.40.1.87.
    1. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chronic Diseases. 1987;40(12):1129–1133. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90080-4.
    1. Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. British J Medical Psychology. 1959;32:50–55.
    1. Pande AC, Crockatt JG, Feltner DE, Janney CA, Smith WT, Weisler R, Londborg PR, Bielski RJ, Zimbroff DL, Davidson JRT, Liu-Dumaw M. Pregablalin in generalized anxiety disorder: a placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:533–540. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.3.533.
    1. Rickels K, Rynn M. Pharmacotherapy of generalized anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(Suppl 14):9–16.
    1. Nardi AE, Valenca AM, Nascimento I, Mezzasalma MA, Zin WA. Double-blind acute clonazepam vs. placebo in carbon dioxide-induced panic attacks. Psychiatry Res. 2000;94:179–184. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1781(00)00135-9.
    1. Graham SJ, Scaife JC, Langley RW, Bradshaw CM, Szabadi E, Xi L, Crumley T, Calder N, Gottesdiener K, Wagner J. Effects of lorazepam on fear-potentiated startle responses in man. J Psychopharmacol. 2005;19(3):249–258. doi: 10.1177/0269881105051528.
    1. Wolf DL, Desjardins PJ, Black PM, Francom SR, Mohanlal RW, Fleishaker JC. Anticipatory anxiety in moderately to highly-anxious oral surgery patients as a screening model for anxiolytics: evaluation of alprazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003;23(1):51–57. doi: 10.1097/00004714-200302000-00009.
    1. Covi L, Lipman R, McNair DM, Czerlinsky T. Symptomatic volunteers in multicenter drug trials. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1979;3:521–533.
    1. Raskin A, Schulterbrandt JG, Reatig N, McKeon JJ. Differential response to chlorpromazine, imipramine and placebo. A study of subgroups of depressed patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1970;23:164–173.
    1. Bennie EH, Mullin JM, Martindale JJ. A double-blind multicenter trial comparing sertraline and fluoxetine in outpatients with major depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 1995;56(6):229–237.
    1. Lipman RS. Differentiating anxiety and depression in anxiety disorders: use of rating scales. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1982;18(4):69–77.
    1. Snaith RP, Zigmond AS. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Manual. Windsor, England: Nfer-Nelson; 1994.
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x.
    1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.
    1. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Lincoln RI: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2000.
    1. Endicott J, Nee J, Harrison W, Blumenthal R. Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire: a new measure. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1993;29:321–326.
    1. Guy W. ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication No. 76-338) Rockville MD: National Institute of Mental Health; 1976.
    1. Schuck P. Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: which coefficient should be used? Qual Life Res. 2004;13:571–586. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000021318.92272.2a.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
    1. Guyatt GH, Walter SD, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Diseases. 1987;40:171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
    1. Messick S. Educational measurement. 3. New York: American Council on Education, Macmillan Publishing Co; Validity; p. 1989.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
    1. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:861–873. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2.
    1. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.
    1. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality-of-life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582–592. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200305000-00004.
    1. Scrimshaw SV, Maher C. Responsiveness of visual analogue and McGill pain scale measures. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001;24:501–504. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2001.118208.
    1. Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M. Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Cancer. 2000;88:2164–2171. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000501)88:9<2164::AID-CNCR24>;2-5.
    1. Love A, Leboeuf C, Crisp TC. Chiropractic chronic low back pain sufferers and self-report assessment methods: I. A reliability study of the visual analogue scale, the pain drawing, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1989;12:21–25.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance released for comment on February 3, 2006. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2006. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures--Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.
    1. Dubois D, Gilet H, Viala-Danten M, Tack J. Psychometric performance and clinical meaningfulness of the Patient Assessment of Constipation - Quality of Life questionnaire in prucalopride (RESOLOR®) trials for chronic constipation. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera