TY - JOUR
T1 - Instrumental validity and intra/inter-rater reliability of a novel low-cost digital pressure algometer
AU - Jerez-Mayorga, Daniel
AU - dos Anjos, Carolina Fernanda
AU - de Cássia Macedo, Maria
AU - Fernandes, Ilha Gonçalves
AU - Aedo-Muñoz, Esteban
AU - Intelangelo, Leonardo
AU - Barbosa, Alexandre Carvalho
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was financed by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001, and by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)—Finance Code APQ-02040-18. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Funding Information:
The following grant information was disclosed by the authors: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES): 001. Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG): APQ-02040-18.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Jerez-Mayorga et al.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/10/12
Y1 - 2020/10/12
N2 - Background: Pain assessment is a key measure that accompanies treatments in a wide range of clinical settings. A low-cost valid and reliable pressure algometer would allow objective assessment of pressure pain to assist a variety of health professionals. However, the pressure algometer is often expensive, which limits its daily use in both clinical and research settings. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the instrumental validity, and the intraand inter-rater reliability of an inexpensive digital adapted pressure algometer. Methods: A single rater applied 60 random compressions on a force platform. The pressure pain thresholds of 20 volunteers were collected twice (3 days apart) by two raters. The main outcome measurements were as follows: The maximal peak force (in kPa) and the pressure pain threshold (adapted pressure algometer vs. force platform). Cronbach's a test was used to assess internal consistency. The standard error of measurement provided estimates of measurement error, and the measurement bias was estimated with the Bland-Altman method, with lower and upper limits of agreement. Results: No differences were observed when comparing the compression results (P = 0.51). The validity and internal intra-rater consistencies ranged from 0.84 to 0.99, and the standard error of measurement from 0.005 to 0.04 kPa. Very strong (r = 0.73-0.74) to near-perfect (r = 0.99) correlations were found, with a low risk of bias for all measurements. The results demonstrated the validity and intra-rater reliability of the digitally adapted pressure algometer. Inter-rater reliability results were moderate (r = 0.55-0.60; Cronbach's a = 0.71-0.75). Conclusion: The adapted pressure algometer provide valid and reliable measurements of pressure pain threshold. The results support more widespread use of the pressure pain threshold method among clinicians.
AB - Background: Pain assessment is a key measure that accompanies treatments in a wide range of clinical settings. A low-cost valid and reliable pressure algometer would allow objective assessment of pressure pain to assist a variety of health professionals. However, the pressure algometer is often expensive, which limits its daily use in both clinical and research settings. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the instrumental validity, and the intraand inter-rater reliability of an inexpensive digital adapted pressure algometer. Methods: A single rater applied 60 random compressions on a force platform. The pressure pain thresholds of 20 volunteers were collected twice (3 days apart) by two raters. The main outcome measurements were as follows: The maximal peak force (in kPa) and the pressure pain threshold (adapted pressure algometer vs. force platform). Cronbach's a test was used to assess internal consistency. The standard error of measurement provided estimates of measurement error, and the measurement bias was estimated with the Bland-Altman method, with lower and upper limits of agreement. Results: No differences were observed when comparing the compression results (P = 0.51). The validity and internal intra-rater consistencies ranged from 0.84 to 0.99, and the standard error of measurement from 0.005 to 0.04 kPa. Very strong (r = 0.73-0.74) to near-perfect (r = 0.99) correlations were found, with a low risk of bias for all measurements. The results demonstrated the validity and intra-rater reliability of the digitally adapted pressure algometer. Inter-rater reliability results were moderate (r = 0.55-0.60; Cronbach's a = 0.71-0.75). Conclusion: The adapted pressure algometer provide valid and reliable measurements of pressure pain threshold. The results support more widespread use of the pressure pain threshold method among clinicians.
KW - Inexpensive
KW - Pain assessment
KW - Pressure algometry
KW - Pressure pain threshold
KW - Reliability
KW - Validity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85094168845&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.7717/peerj.10162
DO - 10.7717/peerj.10162
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85094168845
SN - 2167-8359
VL - 8
JO - PeerJ
JF - PeerJ
M1 - 10162
ER -