Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: a randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers

&NA; The visual analogue scale (VAS) is an established, validated, self‐report measure usually consisting of a 10 cm line on paper with verbal anchors labeling the ends. Palmtop computers (PTCs also known as personal digital appliances) have incorporated VAS entry by use of a touch screen. However, the validity and psychophysical properties of the electronic VAS have never been formally compared with the conventional paper VAS. The aim of this study is to determine the agreement between the electronic (eVAS) and paper (pVAS) modes. Twenty‐four healthy volunteers were recruited for this study. Each study participant provided input using both measurement methods by marking the eVAS and pVAS in response to two kinds of stimuli, cognitive and sensory. A verbal rating scale of seven descriptors of intensity represented the cognitive stimuli. Participants were asked to mark the location that best corresponded to the pain intensity described by each word on scales from ‘no pain’ to ‘worst possible pain’. The sensory stimuli used were a set of test weights consisting of plastic containers ranging from 7 to 129 g. The VAS for sensory stimuli ranged from 0 (no weight) to ‘reference weight’ (the heaviest weight outside the range of test weights). There were two types of input stimuli and two modes for recording responses for a total of four experimental conditions. Two evaluators independently measured and recorded all the pVAS forms to the nearest millimeter. A total of 2016 stimuli were rated. The overall correlation for ratings of both sensory and cognitive stimuli on eVAS and pVAS was r=0.91. For paired verbal stimuli the correlation was r=0.97. For paired sensory stimuli the correlation was r=0.86. The correlation between group eVAS and pVAS ratings to common verbal stimuli was r=0.99. For common sensory stimuli the group correlation was r=0.99. The median of correlations comparing eVAS and pVAS ratings was 0.99 for verbal stimuli and 0.98 for sensory stimuli. Multivariate analyses showed equivalent stimuli to be rated much the same whether entered on paper VAS or PTC touch screen VAS (P<0.0001). Support was found for the validity of the computer version of the VAS scale.

[1]  Josef K. Wang.  Advances in Pain Research and Therapy , 1980 .

[2]  H. McQuay,et al.  The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? , 1997, PAIN.

[3]  N L Stephenson,et al.  Pain measurement: a comparison using horizontal and vertical visual analogue scales. , 2000, Applied nursing research : ANR.

[4]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 1990, The Journal of rheumatology.

[5]  R. Jamison,et al.  Opioid Therapy for Chronic Noncancer Back Pain: A Randomized Prospective Study , 1998, Spine.

[6]  G Soh,et al.  Comparison of two pain rating scales among Chinese cancer patients. , 1992, Chinese medical journal.

[7]  Thomas Svensson,et al.  Pain assessment with different intensity scales in response to loading of joint structures , 1986, Pain.

[8]  R. Dubner,et al.  A multiple random staircase method of psychophysical pain assessment , 1988, Pain.

[9]  Badley Em,et al.  Visual analogue scales as a measure of pain in arthritis: a study of overall pain and pain in individual joints at rest and on movement. , 1989 .

[10]  H. Adami,et al.  Self-rating of pain in nonulcer dyspepsia. A methodological study comparing a new fixed-point scale and the visual analogue scale. , 1987, Journal of clinical gastroenterology.

[11]  M. Swanston,et al.  Pain assessment with interactive computer animation , 1993, Pain.

[12]  G K Crompton,et al.  Electronic diaries for asthma , 1995, BMJ.

[13]  Timothy H. Monk,et al.  A visual analogue scale technique to measure global vigor and affect , 1989, Psychiatry Research.

[14]  C. Wood,et al.  Measuring Vitality , 1990, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[15]  Donald D. Price,et al.  A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales , 1994, Pain.

[16]  R Stratton,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 , 2000, British Journal of Nutrition.

[17]  Ronald Dubner,et al.  Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors , 1978, Pain.

[18]  D. Price,et al.  The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain , 1983, Pain.

[19]  R. Jamison,et al.  Electronic diaries for monitoring chronic pain: 1-year validation study , 2001, Pain.

[20]  J. Flanagan,et al.  Effects of surface texture on weight perception when lifting objects with a precision grip , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  E. Ohnhaus,et al.  Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: A comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale , 1975, PAIN.

[22]  W. Hall,et al.  On “Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors” , 1981, Pain.

[23]  G Gettinby,et al.  Comparison of a visual analogue scale and a numerical rating scale for assessment of lameness, using sheep as a model. , 1993, American journal of veterinary research.

[24]  R. Dhand,et al.  Use of visual analogue scales for assessment of the severity of asthma. , 1988, Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases.