Is less more? A preliminary investigation of the number of response categories in self-reported pain

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Patient Related Outcome Measures 05/2010; 2010(1):9-18. DOI: 10.2147/PROM.S7584
Source: PubMed


The purpose of this study was to conduct a preliminary investigation of the number of response options for self-reports of pain interference. Responses to interference items of the 11-category Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) were obtained in a sample of 434 persons from two sites and modeled using the partial credit model. In successive calibrations, response categories were collapsed and new scores were generated. Scores based on two to three categories produced poor results. Four to five categories yielded better results. However, scoring using more than five categories did not appreciably improve the reliability, person separation, or validity of scores. These results suggest that fewer response categories-as few as five or six-may function as well as the 11 response categories that are conventionally used. The results are preliminary since the number of response categories actually presented was not manipulated in the study design. Future research should compare the reliability and validity of scores based on the BPI interference items when items are presented with the conventionally 11-response format, versus presentation with fewer response options.

Download full-text


Available from: Karon F Cook,
  • Source

    Journal of Pain 12/2013; 14(12):1653-1662. · 4.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Verbal rating scale (VRS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) are regularly used to assess and monitor pain in chronic pain patients. Although the NRS has been generally preferred, limited comparative responsiveness evidence was reported. This study compared the responsiveness of VRS and NRS measuring current pain and investigated the influence of different references (ie, worst, least, average, and current pain or their composite) on the NRSs' responsiveness. Two hundred fifty-four chronic pain patients attended a 10-day pain self-management program and were assessed with two 6-point VRSs (assessing current pain) and four 11-point NRSs (assessing worst, least, average, and current pain) at pre- and posttreatment. A patient-reported rating of pain improvement was used as the criterion for standardized response mean and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. Results showed that the VRSs and NRSs exhibited small responsiveness in all patients, but the magnitude of responsiveness became moderate to large in patients with improved pain. However, in patients with pain improvements, the NRS current pain item and composite score (made up of the 4 pain items) were found to have significantly larger responsiveness and greater discriminatory ability to detect the presence of improvement than other current pain VRSs and the NRSs assessing worst, least, and average pain. Potential implications for clinical practice are discussed. This study shows that the current pain and composite NRSs were more responsive than the current pain VRSs and the NRSs measuring other individual pain references in patients with improved pain, undertaking a short-term, self-management program. The results help inform the selection of pain intensity measures in studies using similar types of intervention.
    The journal of pain: official journal of the American Pain Society 12/2013; 14(12):1653-62. DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2013.08.006 · 4.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Measures for assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that may have initially been developed for research are increasingly being recommended for use in clinical practice as well. Although psychometric rigor is essential, this article focuses on pragmatic characteristics of PROs that may enhance uptake into clinical practice. Three sources were drawn on in identifying pragmatic criteria for PROs: (1) selected literature review including recommendations by other expert groups; (2) key features of several model public domain PROs; and (3) the authors' experience in developing practical PROs. Eight characteristics of a practical PRO include: (1) actionability (i.e., scores guide diagnostic or therapeutic actions/decision making); (2) appropriateness for the relevant clinical setting; (3) universality (i.e., for screening, severity assessment, and monitoring across multiple conditions); (4) self-administration; (5) item features (number of items and bundling issues); (6) response options (option number and dimensions, uniform vs. varying options, time frame, intervals between options); (7) scoring (simplicity and interpretability); and (8) accessibility (nonproprietary, downloadable, available in different languages and for vulnerable groups, and incorporated into electronic health records). Balancing psychometric and pragmatic factors in the development of PROs is important for accelerating the incorporation of PROs into clinical practice. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 04/2015; 68(9). DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.023 · 3.42 Impact Factor