The impact of test medium on use of visual analogue scales

Eye and Contact Lens

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 6-10

  Woods, Craig A ^a   Cumming, Brad ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Computer generated scales; Discrepancy analysis; Visual analogue scales

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONTACT LENS; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE DISCOMFORT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; EVALUATION; METHODOLOGY; MICROCOMPUTER; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PAPER; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD;

ADULT; HUMANS; MICROCOMPUTERS; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PAPER; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 64849088322     PISSN: 15422321     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181909b03     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Freyd M. The graphing rating scale. J Educ Psychol 1923;14:83-102.
2. Carta A, Braccio L, Belpoliti M, et al. Self-assessment of the quality of vision: association of questionnaire score with objective clinical tests. Curr Eye Res 1998;17:506 -511.
3. Seymour RA, Simpson JM, Charlton JE, et al. An evaluation of length and end-phrase of visual analogue scales in dental pain. Pain 1985;21:177-185.
4. Breivik EK, Skoglund LA. Comparison of present pain intensity assessments on horizontally and vertically oriented visual analogue scales. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 1998;20:719 -724.
5. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: A comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain 1975;1:379 -384.
6. Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, et al. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983;17:45-56.
7. Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain I: Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 1983;16:87-101.
8. Papas EB, Schultz BL. Repeatability and comparison of visual analogue and numerical rating scales in the assessment of visual quality. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1997;17:492- 498.
9. Paul-Dauphin A, Guillemin F, Virion JM, et al. Bias and precision in visual analogue scales: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150: 1117-1127.
10. Aitken RCB. Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med 1969;62:989 -993.
11. Ogon M, Krismer M, Sollner W, et al. Chronic low back pain measurement with visual analogue scales in different settings. Pain 1996;64: 425- 428.
12. Cole E, Pisano ED, Clary GJ, et al. A comparative study of mobile electronic data entry systems for clinical trials data collection. Inter J Med Inform 2006;75:722-729.
13. Stratton RJ, Stubbs RJ, Hughes D, et al. Comparison of the traditional paper analogue scale questionnaire with an Apple Newton electronic appetite rating system (EARS) in free living subjects feeding ad libitum. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998;52:737-741.
14. Stubbs RJ, Hughes DA, Johnstone AM, et al. The use of visual analogue scales to assess motivation to eat in human subjects: A review of their reliability and validity with an evaluation of new hand-held computerized systems for temporal tracking of appetite ratings. Br J Nutr 2000;84:405-415.
15. Kreindler D, Levitt A, Woolridge N, et al. Portable mood mapping: The validity and reliability of analog scale displays for mood assessment via hand-held computer. Psychiatry Res 2003;120:165-177.
16. Jamison RN, Gracely RH, Raymond SA, et al. Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: A randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers. Pain 2002;99:341-347.
17. Whybrow S, Stephen JR, Stubbs RJ. The evaluation of an electronic visual analogue scale system for appetite and mood. Eur J Clin Nutr 2006;60:558-560.
18. Granqvist S. Enhancements to the visual analogue scale, VAS, for listening tests. TMH-QPSR 1996;37:61- 65.
19. Pointer JS. A novel visual analogue scale (VAS) device: An instrument based on the VAS designed to quantify the subjective visual experience. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2004;24:181-185.
20. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-310.
21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135-160.
22. du Toit R, Pritchard N, Heffernan S, et al. A comparison of three different scales for rating contact lens handling. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79:313-320.
23. Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat 2007;17: 571-582.