Open AccessConcurrent Validity of the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale in VA Outpatients
Author(s) -
Nassif Thomas H.,
Hull Amanda,
Holliday Stephanie Brooks,
Sullivan Patrick,
Sandbrink Friedhelm
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
pain medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.893
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1526-4637
pISSN - 1526-2375
DOI - 10.1111/pme.12866
Subject(s) - veterans affairs , concurrent validity , medicine , brief pain inventory , rating scale , mental health , chronic pain , quality of life (healthcare) , bivariate analysis , scale (ratio) , pain scale , physical therapy , clinical psychology , psychometrics , psychiatry , psychology , developmental psychology , statistics , physics , nursing , mathematics , quantum mechanics , internal consistency
Objective The purpose of this report is to investigate the concurrent validity of the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) with other validated self‐report measures in U.S. veterans. Design This correlational study was conducted using two samples of outpatients at the Washington, DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center who completed self‐report measures relevant to pain conditions, including pain disability, quality of life, and mental health. Study 1 and 2 consisted of n = 204 and n = 13 participants, respectively. Methods Bivariate Spearman correlations were calculated to examine the correlation among total scores and subscale scores for each scale of interest. Multiple linear regressions were also computed in Study 1. Results In Study 1, the DVPRS interference scale (DVPRS‐II) was significantly correlated with the Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ) (ρ = 0.69, P < 0.001) and the Veterans RAND 36‐item Health Survey physical and mental component scales (ρ = −0.37, P < 0.001; ρ = −0.46, P < 0.001, respectively). When controlling for sex, age, and other self‐report measures, the relationship between the DVPRS‐II and PDQ remained significant. In Study 2, pain interference on the DVPRS and Brief Pain Inventory were highly correlated (ρ = 0.90, P < 0.001); however, the intensity scale of each measure was also highly associated with the interference summary scores. Conclusions These findings provide preliminary evidence for the concurrent validity of the DVPRS as a brief, multidimensional measure of pain interference that make it a practical tool for use in primary care settings to assess the impact of pain on daily functioning and monitor chronic pain over time.