COA At-a-Glance
Evidence of cognitive interviewing of draft instrument in target patient population
Evidence of internal consistency
Evidence of test-retest or inter-rater reliability
Evidence of concurrent validity
Evidence of known-groups validity
Evidence of ability to detect change over time
Evidence of responder thresholds
Inclusion of the COA in product labelling
- Overview
- Content Validity
- Reliability
- Validity
- Ability to Detect Change
- Responder Thresholds
- Reference(s) of development / validation
- Other references
- Inclusion of the COA in product labelling
- Inclusion of the COA in product labelling (agency, drug, drug approval date, COA results) from PROLABELS search
- Existence of Scoring / Interpretation / User Manual
- Original language and translations
- References of translations
- Authors and contact information
- Condition of use: copyright
- Website
- Review copy
Overview
Instrument Name: 5-points Verbal Rating Scale- Pain
Abbreviation: VRS
Points for Consideration:
In a Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) adjectives are used to describe different levels of pain. The respondent is asked to mark the adjective which fits best to the pain intensity (Haefeli and Elfering 2006). The item wording, response scale wording and recall period vary and are often developed to be study specific.
Description of Tool:
The 5-point Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) is a single item PRO used to measure pain intensity. The patient is asked to mark the adjective which fits best to the pain intensity ranging from "no pain at all" and "extremely intense pain" [descriptors used and recall period vary by study].
Other Related Tools (if applicable):
None identified
Minimum Qualification Required by COA Administrator: No degree requirement
Comment:
None
Year: None identified
Objective of Development:
None identified
Population of Development: Age range (therapeutic indication):
None identified
Pediatric Population(s) in which COA has been used:
None identified
COA type: PRO
Number of Items 1
Mode of Administration: Self-administered
Data Collection Mode: Paper and Paper administered
Time for Completion: None identified
Response Scales: Response scale can vary by study. A 4-point VRS is most commonly used in scale comparison studies, and a 5-point VRS is commonly used in treatment outcome studies [descriptors used vary by study]
Summary of Scoring:
Available scores: Typically, a score of "0" is given to the least intense descriptor, a score of "1" is given to the next descriptor and so on until each adjective has a score assigned
Weighting: No
Score Interpretation: Higher scores=Higher pain
Content Validity
Evidence of Literature Review: None identified
Evidence of Instrument Review: None identified
Evidence of Clinical or Expert Input: None identified
Evidence of concept elicitation in target patient population: None identified
Evidence of a Saturation Grid: None identified
Evidence for Selection of Data Collection Method: None identified
Recall/Observation Period: None identified
Evidence for Selection of Reponse Options: None identified
Evidence of cognitive interviewing of draft instrument in target patient population: None identified
Evidence of Preliminary Scoring of Items and Domains: None identified
Evidence related to respondent and administrator burden: None identified
Evidence of a Conceptual Framework: None identified
Evidence of an item-tracking matrix: None identified
Evidence related to item selection: None identified
Evidence of re-testing the final version: None identified
Reliability
Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): None identified
Evidence of internal consistency: None identified
Test-retest Reliability (ICC):
None identified
Inter-rater/ inter-interviewer reliability (kappa):
None identified
Evidence of test-retest or inter-rater reliability: None identified
Validity
Concurrent validity (convergent, divergent):
None identified
Known-group validity:
None identified
Evidence of Translatability Assessment: None identified
Evidence related to missing data: None identified
Evidence for Selection of Recall Period: None identified
Evidence of Administration Instructions and Training Provided: None identified
Evidence of concurrent validity: None identified
Evidence of known-groups validity: None identified
Evidence of ability to detect change over time: None identified
Ability to Detect Change
Ability to detect change (Responsiveness):
None identified
Responder Thresholds
Responder Thresholds:
None identified
Evidence of responder thresholds: None identified
Reference(s) of development / validation
None identified
Other references
Haefeli, M., & Elfering, A. (2006). Pain assessment. European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), S17–S24.Full Text Article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16320034/
Inclusion of the COA in product labelling
None identified
Inclusion of the COA in product labelling (agency, drug, drug approval date, COA results) from PROLABELS search
None identified
Existence of Scoring / Interpretation / User Manual
None identified
Original language and translations
None identified
References of translations
None identified
Condition of use: copyright
None identified
Website
None identified
Review copy
None identified