Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 21:14:1129-1139.
doi: 10.2147/JPR.S303305. eCollection 2021.

Validity and Utility of Four Pain Intensity Measures for Use in International Research

Raviwon Atisook  1 , Pramote Euasobhon  1 , Arunee Saengsanon  2 , Mark P Jensen  3
Affiliations

Validity and Utility of Four Pain Intensity Measures for Use in International Research

Raviwon Atisook et al. J Pain Res. .

Abstract

Background: The majority of previous research that has examined the validity of pain intensity rating scales has been conducted in western and developed countries. Research to evaluate the generalizability of previous findings in non-developed countries is necessary for identifying the scales that are most appropriate for use in international research.

Purpose: The aims of the current study were to (1) evaluate the validity and utility of four commonly used measures of pain intensity in a sample of patients with chronic pain from Thailand and (2) compare findings in the current sample with published findings from research conducted in other countries, in order to identify the measure or measures which might be most appropriate for cross-country research.

Methods: Three hundred and sixty patients with chronic pain seen in a hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, were asked to rate their current pain and average, worst, and least pain intensity in the past week using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 6-point Verbal Rating Scale (VRS-6), 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11), and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). We evaluated the utility and validity of each measure by examining the (1) rates of correct responding and (2) association of each measure with a factor score representing the variance shared across measures, respectively. We also evaluated the associations between incorrect response rates and both age and education level, and then compared the findings from this sample with the findings from research conducted in other countries.

Results: The results indicated support for the validity of all measures among participants who were able to use these measures. However, there was variability in the incorrect response rates, with the VAS having the highest (45%) and the NRS-11 having the lowest (15%) incorrect response rates. The VAS was also the least preferred (9%) and the NRS-11 the most preferred (52%) scale. Education and age were significantly associated with incorrect response rates, and education level with scale preference.

Conclusion: The findings indicate that the NRS-11 has the most utility in our sample of Thai individuals with chronic pain. However, when considered in light of the findings from other countries, the results of this study suggest that the FPS-R may have the most utility for use in cross-cultural and international research. Research in additional samples in developing countries is needed to evaluate the generalizability of the current findings.

Keywords: Face Pain Scale-Revised; Numerical Rating Scale; Verbal Rating Scale; Visual Analogue Scale; cross-country comparison; pain assessment; pain scale preference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Mark P Jensen reports grants from Zogenix, Inc., outside the submitted work. All authors declare no other personal or professional conflicts of interest, and no other financial support from the companies that produce and/or distribute the drugs, devices, or materials described in this report.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of participants who prefer each pain scale (N=360).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. St Sauver JL, Warner DO, Yawn BP, et al. Why patients visit their doctors: assessing the most prevalent conditions in a defined American population. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(1):56–67. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.08.020 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mantyselka P, Kumpusalo E, Ahonen R, et al. Pain as a reason to visit the doctor: a study in Finnish primary health care. Pain. 2001;89(2–3):175–180. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00361-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dahl JL. Effective pain management in terminal care. Clin Geriatr Med. 1996;12(2):279–300. doi:10.1016/S0749-0690(18)30227-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):9–19. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Strong J, van Griensven H. Pain assessment and measurement. In: van Griensven H, Strong J, Unruh A, editors. Pain: A Textbook for Health Professionals. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2014:91-113.

LinkOut - more resources