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, Oct 06, 2015
5 Reads
  • Source
    Journal of Pain 12/2013; 14(12):1653-1662. · 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