How should we use the visual analogue scale (VAS) in rehabilitation outcomes? I: How much of what? the seductive VAS numbers are not true measures

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Volumn 44, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 798-799

  Franchignoni, Franco ^a   Salaffi, Fausto ^b   Tesio, Luigi ^c,d  

^a IRCCS   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^d ISTITUTO AUXOLOGICO ITALIANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; NOTE; PAIN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

HUMANS; PAIN; PAIN MEASUREMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84866042872     PISSN: 16501977     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-1030     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Kersten P, Küçükdeveci A, Tennant A. The use of the visual analogue scale (VAS) in rehabilitation outcomes. J Rehabil Med 2012: 44: 609-610.
2. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 41-55.
3. de C Williams AC, Davies HT, Chadury Y. Simple pain rating scales hide complex idiosyncratic meanings. Pain 2000; 85: 457-463. (Pubitemid 30214173)
4. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patientbased outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: i-iv, 1-74.
5. Küçükdeveci A, Tennant A, Grimby G, Franchignoni F. Strategies for assessment and outcome measurement in physical and rehabilitation medicine: an educational review. J Rehabil Med 2011; 43: 661-672.
6. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 1129-1133. (Pubitemid 17158144)
7. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, et al. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011; 41: 1073-1093.
8. Tesio L. Outcome measurement in behavioural sciences: a view on how to shift attention from means to individuals and why. Int J Rehabil Res 2012; 35: 1-12.
9. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain 1986; 27: 117-126. (Pubitemid 16003213)
10. Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2000; 104: 1-15.
11. Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Michail X, Christodoulou N. Practical lessons learned from use of Rasch analysis in the assessment of outcome measures. Port J Phys Rehabil Med 2010; 19: 5-12.
12. Grimby G, Tennant A, Tesio L. The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: time to end malpractice? J Rehabil Med 2012; 44: 97-98.
13. Andrich D. Understanding resistance to the data-model relationship in Rasch's paradigm: a reflection for the next generation. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 325-359.
14. Wolfe EW, Smith EV Jr. Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: part I. J Appl Meas 2007; 8: 97-123.
15. Wolfe EW, Smith EV Jr. Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: part II. J Appl Meas 2007; 8: 204-234.