Premium
Geriatric Pain Measure Short Form: Development and Initial Evaluation
Author(s) -
Blozik Eva,
Stuck Andreas E.,
Niemann Steffen,
Ferrell Bruce A.,
Harari Danielle,
RentelnKruse Wolfgang von,
Gillmann Gerhard,
Beck John C.,
CloughGorr Kerri M.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of the american geriatrics society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.992
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 1532-5415
pISSN - 0002-8614
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01474.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cronbach's alpha , mcgill pain questionnaire , gerontology , ambulatory , geriatrics , physical therapy , sample (material) , psychometrics , clinical psychology , psychiatry , visual analogue scale , surgery , chemistry , chromatography
OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a short form of the 24‐item Geriatric Pain Measure (GPM) for use in community‐dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Derivation and validation of a 12‐item version of the GPM in a European and an independent U.S. sample of community‐dwelling older adults. SETTING: Three community‐dwelling sites in London, United Kingdom; Hamburg, Germany; Solothurn, Switzerland; and two ambulatory geriatrics clinics in Los Angeles, California. PARTICIPANTS: European sample: 1,059 community‐dwelling older persons from three sites (London, UK; Hamburg, Germany; Solothurn, Switzerland); validation sample: 50 persons from Los Angeles, California, ambulatory geriatric clinics. MEASUREMENTS: Multidimensional questionnaire including self‐reported demographic and clinical information. RESULTS: Based on item‐to–total scale correlations in the European sample, 11 of 24 GPM items were selected for inclusion in the short form. One additional item (pain‐related sleep problems) was included based on clinical relevance. In the validation sample, the Cronbach alpha of GPM‐12 was 0.92 (individual subscale range 0.77–0.92), and the Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ) between GPM‐12 and the original GPM was 0.98. The correlation between the GPM‐12 and the McGill Pain Questionnaire was 0.63 ( P <.001), similar to the correlation between the original GPM and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (Pearson r =0.63; P <.001). Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the GPM‐12 covers three subfactors (pain intensity, pain with ambulation, disengagement because of pain). CONCLUSION: The GPM‐12 demonstrated good validity and reliability in these European and U.S. populations of older adults. Despite its brevity, the GPM‐12 captures the multidimensional nature of pain in three subscales. The self‐administered GPM‐12 may be useful in the clinical assessment process and management of pain and in pain‐related research in older persons.