The Functional Pain Scale: Reliability, validity, and responiveness in an elderly population

Fred Michael Gloth, A. A. Scheve, C. V. Stober, Selina Chow, Jane Prosser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: Because of difficulty experienced in assessing pain in frail older patients and the lack of pain assessment tools with standardization in the elderly, the Functional Pain Scale (FPS), an instrument incorporating both subjective and objective components to assess pain, was developed and evaluated. Design, setting, participants, and measures: One hundred subjects more than 65 years old participated in the validity, reliability, and responsiveness (the clinical sensitivity of the instrument to change) testing of the Functional Pain Scale. Subjects were recruited from a geriatrics inpatient setting, a geriatrics outpatient setting, and a local hospice (residing in their homes). Ninety-four of the subjects completed all phases of testing. Reliability was tested using a test-retest format and a correlation matrix. Criterion-related validity was established as compared with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Present Pain Intensity (PPI), the McGill Short Form Questionnaire (MPQ-SF), and the Numeric Pain Scale (NPS) instruments. Responsiveness for the FPS, the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS instruments was determined using five previously described techniques: effect size, standardized response means, relative efficiency, direct comparison of t test scores, and direct comparison of P values. A cumulative index was developed to rank each scale. Cumulative responsiveness index scores were based on individual scale performance for each separate responsiveness test. The lowest score in the cumulative responsiveness index indicated the most responsive scale. Results: Interrater reliability for instruments tested exceeded 0.95 for all instruments tested. Validity testing showed high correlations as well (r = 0.62, r = 0.85, r = 0.80, r = 0.90 for the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS respectively). Responsiveness evaluated overall by the responsiveness index was best for the Functional Pain Scale (7) followed by the Visual Analog Scale (12), the Present Pain Intensity (13), the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (19), and the Numerical Pain Questionnaire (24). Conclusions: The Functional Pain Scale was determined to be reliable, valid, and responsive. The responsiveness of the Functional Pain Scale was superior to the other instruments tested. The Functional Pain Scale is an acceptable instrument for assessing pain in older adults and may reflect changes in pain better than other instruments tested. Further testing in other populations is warranted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)110-114
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American Medical Directors Association
Volume2
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Reproducibility of Results
Pain
Population
Pain Measurement
Geriatrics
Hospices
Visual Analog Scale
Inpatients
Outpatients

Keywords

  • Pain assessment
  • Pain scale
  • Senior

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

The Functional Pain Scale : Reliability, validity, and responiveness in an elderly population. / Gloth, Fred Michael; Scheve, A. A.; Stober, C. V.; Chow, Selina; Prosser, Jane.

In: Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2001, p. 110-114.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{088bfed1efab4f15ab57785f1e7bc5bf,
title = "The Functional Pain Scale: Reliability, validity, and responiveness in an elderly population",
abstract = "Objectives: Because of difficulty experienced in assessing pain in frail older patients and the lack of pain assessment tools with standardization in the elderly, the Functional Pain Scale (FPS), an instrument incorporating both subjective and objective components to assess pain, was developed and evaluated. Design, setting, participants, and measures: One hundred subjects more than 65 years old participated in the validity, reliability, and responsiveness (the clinical sensitivity of the instrument to change) testing of the Functional Pain Scale. Subjects were recruited from a geriatrics inpatient setting, a geriatrics outpatient setting, and a local hospice (residing in their homes). Ninety-four of the subjects completed all phases of testing. Reliability was tested using a test-retest format and a correlation matrix. Criterion-related validity was established as compared with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Present Pain Intensity (PPI), the McGill Short Form Questionnaire (MPQ-SF), and the Numeric Pain Scale (NPS) instruments. Responsiveness for the FPS, the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS instruments was determined using five previously described techniques: effect size, standardized response means, relative efficiency, direct comparison of t test scores, and direct comparison of P values. A cumulative index was developed to rank each scale. Cumulative responsiveness index scores were based on individual scale performance for each separate responsiveness test. The lowest score in the cumulative responsiveness index indicated the most responsive scale. Results: Interrater reliability for instruments tested exceeded 0.95 for all instruments tested. Validity testing showed high correlations as well (r = 0.62, r = 0.85, r = 0.80, r = 0.90 for the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS respectively). Responsiveness evaluated overall by the responsiveness index was best for the Functional Pain Scale (7) followed by the Visual Analog Scale (12), the Present Pain Intensity (13), the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (19), and the Numerical Pain Questionnaire (24). Conclusions: The Functional Pain Scale was determined to be reliable, valid, and responsive. The responsiveness of the Functional Pain Scale was superior to the other instruments tested. The Functional Pain Scale is an acceptable instrument for assessing pain in older adults and may reflect changes in pain better than other instruments tested. Further testing in other populations is warranted.",
keywords = "Pain assessment, Pain scale, Senior",
author = "Gloth, {Fred Michael} and Scheve, {A. A.} and Stober, {C. V.} and Selina Chow and Jane Prosser",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1016/S1525-8610(04)70176-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "110--114",
journal = "Journal of the American Medical Directors Association",
issn = "1525-8610",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Functional Pain Scale

T2 - Reliability, validity, and responiveness in an elderly population

AU - Gloth, Fred Michael

AU - Scheve, A. A.

AU - Stober, C. V.

AU - Chow, Selina

AU - Prosser, Jane

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Objectives: Because of difficulty experienced in assessing pain in frail older patients and the lack of pain assessment tools with standardization in the elderly, the Functional Pain Scale (FPS), an instrument incorporating both subjective and objective components to assess pain, was developed and evaluated. Design, setting, participants, and measures: One hundred subjects more than 65 years old participated in the validity, reliability, and responsiveness (the clinical sensitivity of the instrument to change) testing of the Functional Pain Scale. Subjects were recruited from a geriatrics inpatient setting, a geriatrics outpatient setting, and a local hospice (residing in their homes). Ninety-four of the subjects completed all phases of testing. Reliability was tested using a test-retest format and a correlation matrix. Criterion-related validity was established as compared with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Present Pain Intensity (PPI), the McGill Short Form Questionnaire (MPQ-SF), and the Numeric Pain Scale (NPS) instruments. Responsiveness for the FPS, the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS instruments was determined using five previously described techniques: effect size, standardized response means, relative efficiency, direct comparison of t test scores, and direct comparison of P values. A cumulative index was developed to rank each scale. Cumulative responsiveness index scores were based on individual scale performance for each separate responsiveness test. The lowest score in the cumulative responsiveness index indicated the most responsive scale. Results: Interrater reliability for instruments tested exceeded 0.95 for all instruments tested. Validity testing showed high correlations as well (r = 0.62, r = 0.85, r = 0.80, r = 0.90 for the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS respectively). Responsiveness evaluated overall by the responsiveness index was best for the Functional Pain Scale (7) followed by the Visual Analog Scale (12), the Present Pain Intensity (13), the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (19), and the Numerical Pain Questionnaire (24). Conclusions: The Functional Pain Scale was determined to be reliable, valid, and responsive. The responsiveness of the Functional Pain Scale was superior to the other instruments tested. The Functional Pain Scale is an acceptable instrument for assessing pain in older adults and may reflect changes in pain better than other instruments tested. Further testing in other populations is warranted.

AB - Objectives: Because of difficulty experienced in assessing pain in frail older patients and the lack of pain assessment tools with standardization in the elderly, the Functional Pain Scale (FPS), an instrument incorporating both subjective and objective components to assess pain, was developed and evaluated. Design, setting, participants, and measures: One hundred subjects more than 65 years old participated in the validity, reliability, and responsiveness (the clinical sensitivity of the instrument to change) testing of the Functional Pain Scale. Subjects were recruited from a geriatrics inpatient setting, a geriatrics outpatient setting, and a local hospice (residing in their homes). Ninety-four of the subjects completed all phases of testing. Reliability was tested using a test-retest format and a correlation matrix. Criterion-related validity was established as compared with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Present Pain Intensity (PPI), the McGill Short Form Questionnaire (MPQ-SF), and the Numeric Pain Scale (NPS) instruments. Responsiveness for the FPS, the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS instruments was determined using five previously described techniques: effect size, standardized response means, relative efficiency, direct comparison of t test scores, and direct comparison of P values. A cumulative index was developed to rank each scale. Cumulative responsiveness index scores were based on individual scale performance for each separate responsiveness test. The lowest score in the cumulative responsiveness index indicated the most responsive scale. Results: Interrater reliability for instruments tested exceeded 0.95 for all instruments tested. Validity testing showed high correlations as well (r = 0.62, r = 0.85, r = 0.80, r = 0.90 for the VAS, the PPI, the MPQ-SF, and the NPS respectively). Responsiveness evaluated overall by the responsiveness index was best for the Functional Pain Scale (7) followed by the Visual Analog Scale (12), the Present Pain Intensity (13), the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (19), and the Numerical Pain Questionnaire (24). Conclusions: The Functional Pain Scale was determined to be reliable, valid, and responsive. The responsiveness of the Functional Pain Scale was superior to the other instruments tested. The Functional Pain Scale is an acceptable instrument for assessing pain in older adults and may reflect changes in pain better than other instruments tested. Further testing in other populations is warranted.

KW - Pain assessment

KW - Pain scale

KW - Senior

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034997644&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034997644&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1525-8610(04)70176-0

DO - 10.1016/S1525-8610(04)70176-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 12812581

AN - SCOPUS:0034997644

VL - 2

SP - 110

EP - 114

JO - Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

JF - Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

SN - 1525-8610

IS - 3

ER -