This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Le Resche, L. Articles by Dworkin, S.F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Le Resche, L. Articles by Dworkin, S.F. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Reliability of Visual Analog and Verbal Descriptor Scales for "Objective" Measurement of Temporomandibular Disorder Pain

Department of Oral Medicine SC-63, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195

J. Burgess

Department of Oral Medicine SC-63, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, Pain Center, University Hospital RC-76, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195

S.F. Dworkin

Department of Oral Medicine SC-63, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences RP-10, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195

Eight dentists viewed standardized videotapes showing palpations of the temporomandibular joint and muscles of mastication and recorded their judgments concerning the amount of pain the patient was experiencing. Judgments were recorded using a four-point verbal descriptor scale (VDS) ("none", "mild", "moderate", "severe "pain) or a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) anchored with the terms "no pain" and "worst pain possible". Test/re-test reliability over a one-week period and interjudge reliabilities were calculated for each scale; reliabilities of the two scales were directly compared based on the statistical equivalence of weighted kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient.

Neither scale showed satisfactory reliability. Median test/re-test reliabilities were k = 0.590 for the VDS and r = 0.822 for the VAS. Interjudge reliabilities averaged k = 0.394 for the VDS and r = 0. 735 for the VAS. Direct comparison of reliabilities for the two scales showed no clear advantage for either scale. The marginal reliabilities of these scales, when used by dentists to quantify the patient's pain, suggest that neither scale should be regarded as an "objective" pain measure.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 67, No. 1, 33-36 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345880670010601


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. K Mangione and K. M Palombaro Exercise Prescription for a Patient 3 Months After Hip Fracture Physical Therapy, July 1, 2005; 85(7): 676 - 687. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Averbuch and M. Katzper Assessment of Visual Analog versus Categorical Scale for Measurement of Osteoarthritis Pain J. Clin. Pharmacol., April 1, 2004; 44(4): 368 - 372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Ohrbach, J. Blascovich, E.N. Gale, W.D. McCall Jr, and S.F. Dworkin Psychophysiological Assessment of Stress in Chronic Pain: Comparisons of Stressful Stimuli and of Response Systems Journal of Dental Research, October 1, 1998; 77(10): 1840 - 1850. [Abstract] [PDF]