Similarities and differences in assessing nausea on a verbal category scale and a visual analogue scale

Cancer Nursing

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 260-266

  Börjeson, Sussanne ^a   Hursti, Timo J ^b   Peterson, Curt ^a   Fredikson, Mats ^b   Fürst, Carl Johan ^c   Åvall Lundqvist, Elisabeth ^a   Steineck, Gunnar ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c Stockholms Sjukhem Foundation   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Category scale; Measurement; Methods; Nausea; Symptom assessment; Visual analogue scale

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NAUSEA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

CLINICAL NURSING RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMANS; NAUSEA; NURSING ASSESSMENT; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0030764483     PISSN: 0162220X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00002820-199708000-00005     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Folstein MF, Luna R. Reliability, validity, and clinical application of the Visual Analogue Mood Scale. Psychological Medicine 1973;3:479-86.
2. Fetting JH, Grochow LB, Folstein MF, Ettinger DS, Colvin M. The course of nausea and vomiting after high-dose cyclophosphamide. Cancer Treatment Reports 1982;66:1487-93.
3. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurements of pain: a comparison between verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain 1975;1:379-384.
4. Scott J, Huskinsson EC. Graphic representation of pain. Pain 1976;2:175-184.
5. Syrjala KL, Chapman R. Measurement of clinical pain: A review and integration of research findings. New York: Raven Press, 1984.
6. Price DD, Bush FM, Long S, Harkins SW. A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales. Pain 1994;56:217-26.
7. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1987;40:1129-33.
8. Del Favero A, Roila F, Basurto C, et al. Assessment of nausea. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1990;38:115-20.
9. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales. Data from a randomized trial. Controlled Clinical Trials 1990;11:43-51.
10. Gift AG. Visual analogue scales: measurement of subjective phenomena. Nursing Research 1989;38:286-8.
11. Rhodes VA, Watson PM, Johnson MH. Development of reliable and valid measures of nausea and vomiting. Cancer Nurs 1984;7: 33-41.
12. Jenns K. Importance of nausea. Cancer Nurs 1994;17:488-93.
13. Colbourne L. Patients' experiences of chemotherapy treatment. Prof Nurse 1995;10:439-42.
14. Koller M, Kussman J, Lorenz W, et al. Symptom reporting in cancer patients. The role of negative affect and experienced social stigma. Cancer 1996;77:983-995.
15. Clavel M, Bonneterre J, d'Allens H, Paillarse JM. Oral ondansetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis in breast cancer patients. French Ondansetron Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31a:15-9.
16. Morrow GR. The assessment of nausea and vomiting. Past problems, current issues and suggestions for future research. Cancer 1984;53:2267-2278.
17. Aapro MS. Review of experience with ondansetron and granisetron. Ann Oncol 1993;4(Suppl 3):S9-S14.
18. Peterson C, Hursti TJ, Borjeson S, et al. Single high-dose dexamethasone improves the effect of ondansetron on acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting but impairs the control of delayed symptoms. Supportive Care in Cancer 1996;4:440-6.
19. Kremer E, Atkinson JH, Ignelzi RJ. Measurement of pain: Patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain 1981;10: 241-248.
20. Portenoy RK, Thaler HT, Koblith AB, et al. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: an instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress. Euro J Cancer 1994;9:1326-1336.
21. Helgason AR, Adolfsson J, Dickman P, Fredrikson M, Arver S, Steineck G. Waning sexual function - the most important disease-specific distress for patients with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 1996;73: 1417-1421.
22. Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing & Health 1990;13:227-236.
23. Cox EP. The optimal number of response alteatives for a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research 1980;17:407-22.
24. von Essen L. What is good caring? [Doctoral dissertation]. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1994. 99 p.
25. Olver IN, Matthews JP, Bishop IF, Smith RA. The roles of patient and observer assessments in anti-emetic trials. Euro J Cancer 1994;30A:1223-1227.
26. Holmes S, Eburn E. Patients' and nurses' perceptions of symptom distress in cancer. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1989;14:840-6.