3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing how individuals conceptualize numeric pain ratings: validity and reliability of the Pain Schema Inventory (PSI–6) Short Form

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          While numeric scales to represent pain intensity have been well validated, individuals use various conceptualizations when assigning a number to pain intensity, referred to as pain rating schema. The 18-item Pain Schema Inventory (PSI-18) quantifies pain rating schema by asking for numeric values for multiple mild, moderate or severe pain conditions. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of a shortened form of the PSI, using only 6 items (PSI-6).

          Methods

          A secondary analysis was performed on two existing datasets. The first ( n = 641) involved a community-based population that completed the PSI-18. The second ( n = 182) included participants with chronic pain who completed the PSI-6 twice, one week apart. We assessed face validity, convergent validity, offset biases, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of the PSI-6 compared to the PSI-18.

          Results

          Both the PSI-18 and PSI-6 demonstrated excellent face validity. The PSI-6 demonstrated excellent convergent validity relative to the PSI-18, with correlations from r = 0.88 to 0.92. Bland-Altman plots revealed offset biases near zero (< 0.22 on 0–10 scale) across all categories of mild, moderate, severe and average pain. Internal consistency was excellent, with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.91 and 0.80, for PSI-18 and PSI-6 respectively. Test-retest reliability of the PSI-6 was high with correlations from r = 0.70–0.76.

          Conclusion

          The PSI-6 is a valid and reliable tool to assess pain rating schema with reduced subject burden, to better interpret individuals’ pain ratings and adjust for inter-individual variability.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

            Recently, an increasing number of systematic reviews have been published in which the measurement properties of health status questionnaires are compared. For a meaningful comparison, quality criteria for measurement properties are needed. Our aim was to develop quality criteria for design, methods, and outcomes of studies on the development and evaluation of health status questionnaires. Quality criteria for content validity, internal consistency, criterion validity, construct validity, reproducibility, longitudinal validity, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and interpretability were derived from existing guidelines and consensus within our research group. For each measurement property a criterion was defined for a positive, negative, or indeterminate rating, depending on the design, methods, and outcomes of the validation study. Our criteria make a substantial contribution toward defining explicit quality criteria for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Our criteria can be used in systematic reviews of health status questionnaires, to detect shortcomings and gaps in knowledge of measurement properties, and to design validation studies. The future challenge will be to refine and complete the criteria and to reach broad consensus, especially on quality criteria for good measurement properties.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises

              The current International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) definition of pain as "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage" was recommended by the Subcommittee on Taxonomy and adopted by the IASP Council in 1979. This definition has become accepted widely by health care professionals and researchers in the pain field and adopted by several professional, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations, including the World Health Organization. In recent years, some in the field have reasoned that advances in our understanding of pain warrant a reevaluation of the definition and have proposed modifications. Therefore, in 2018, the IASP formed a 14-member, multinational Presidential Task Force comprising individuals with broad expertise in clinical and basic science related to pain, to evaluate the current definition and accompanying note and recommend whether they should be retained or changed. This review provides a synopsis of the critical concepts, the analysis of comments from the IASP membership and public, and the committee's final recommendations for revisions to the definition and notes, which were discussed over a 2-year period. The task force ultimately recommended that the definition of pain be revised to "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage," and that the accompanying notes be updated to a bulleted list that included the etymology. The revised definition and notes were unanimously accepted by the IASP Council early this year.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2714595/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1868319/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1248718/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Journal
                Front Pain Res (Lausanne)
                Front Pain Res (Lausanne)
                Front. Pain Res.
                Frontiers in Pain Research
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2673-561X
                2673-561X
                05 August 2024
                2024
                : 5
                : 1415635
                Affiliations
                Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa , Iowa City, IA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Paul Geha, University of Rochester, United States

                Reviewed by: Brandon Boring, Texas A and M University, United States

                Rami Jabakhanji, Northwestern University, United States

                [* ] Correspondence: Laura A. Frey-Law laura-freylaw@ 123456uiowa.edu
                Article
                10.3389/fpain.2024.1415635
                11330879
                39161648
                63ac126d-4a85-46aa-8d6d-f0e1d6376525
                © 2024 Wiederien, Wang and Frey-Law.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 10 April 2024
                : 16 July 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 46, Pages: 10, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: National Center For Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health
                Award ID: UM1TR004403
                The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
                Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Center For Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UM1TR004403 (supporting REDCap). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
                Categories
                Pain Research
                Brief Research Report
                Custom metadata
                Pain Research Methods

                pain rating,questionnaire,psychometric property,bland-altman,pain schema

                Comments

                Comment on this article