Sánchez-Rodríguez Elisabet, de la Vega Rocío, Castarlenas Elena, Roset Roman, Miró Jordi
Department of Psychology and Institut d'investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili, Unit for the Study and Treatment of Pain - ALGOS, Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Spain.
Pain Med. 2015 Oct;16(10):1982-92. doi: 10.1111/pme.12859. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
Painometer is a mobile application that includes four pain intensity scales: the Numerical Rating Scale, the Faces Pain Scale-Revised, the mechanical visual analogue scale and the Colored Analogue Scale. The aim of this study was to analyze the validity and agreement of the intensity reports provided by these scales and their traditional counterparts.
Participants were 180 young people (mean age = 14.88; SD= 1.64; age range: 12-19). They were asked to report the maximum intensity of their most frequent pain in the previous three months using traditional and electronic versions of the scales. They also reported their level of fatigue and pain catastrophizing. Construct validity was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and by convergent and discriminant validity. Criterion validity was assessed as concurrent validity. Agreement was calculated using the Bland and Altman method. Analyses were conducted for two confidence intervals (CI): 95% and 80%.
CFA demonstrated that the four electronic versions of the scales measure a single factor. All the scales showed a) moderate to high convergent validity, b) adequate discriminant validity with fatigue ratings, and c) adequate concurrent validity with pain catastrophizing ratings. Results also show that traditional and electronic versions of the four scales are in agreement, at least at the 80% CI.
Our results demonstrate that pain intensity scores reported with the scales in Painometer are valid, and concordant with their traditional counterparts.
疼痛计是一款移动应用程序,包含四种疼痛强度量表:数字评定量表、面部疼痛量表修订版、机械视觉模拟量表和彩色模拟量表。本研究的目的是分析这些量表及其传统对应量表所提供的强度报告的有效性和一致性。
参与者为180名年轻人(平均年龄 = 14.88;标准差 = 1.64;年龄范围:12 - 19岁)。要求他们使用传统版和电子版量表报告前三个月最常出现疼痛的最大强度。他们还报告了自己的疲劳程度和疼痛灾难化程度。通过验证性因素分析(CFA)以及收敛效度和区分效度来评估结构效度。将标准效度评估为同时效度。使用布兰德和奥特曼方法计算一致性。针对两个置信区间(CI)进行分析:95%和80%。
CFA表明,这四种量表的电子版测量的是单一因素。所有量表均显示:a)中度到高度的收敛效度,b)与疲劳评分有足够的区分效度,c)与疼痛灾难化评分有足够的同时效度。结果还表明,这四种量表的传统版和电子版至少在80%的置信区间内是一致的。
我们的结果表明,使用疼痛计中的量表报告的疼痛强度得分是有效的,并且与它们的传统对应量表一致。