5-points Verbal Rating Scale- Pain

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

Pain
Pain severity

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


Existence of Scoring / Interpretation / User Manual

None identified


Original language and translations

None identified


References of translations

None identified


Authors and contact information

None identified


Website

None identified


Review copy

None identified