Dataset Information

Reliability and construct validity of a composite pain scale for rabbit (CANCRS) in a clinical environment.

ABSTRACT: A composite pain scale for assessing and quantifying pain in rabbits (CANCRS) has been designed merging the Rabbit Grimace Scale (RbtGS) and a scale including clinical parameters (CPS). Construct validity and inter-rater reliability were assessed for CANCRS, for RbtGS and for CPS, in order to test their potential to detect pain in a clinical setting. Rabbits (n = 116) were either hybrids or purebreds and they were independently evaluated by two raters, who could be veterinarians (V) or veterinary medicine students (S). Score intervals determined four pain classes (No pain, Discomfort, Moderate pain and Severe pain) that matched presumptive pain classes associated with some pathological conditions. A chi-square test was used to assess the construct validity of the scales by checking how frequently scale results and presumptive pain classes matched. Sixty-nine patients were evaluated by one V and one S, whereas forty-seven rabbits were assessed by two V, in order to test inter-rater reliability. An intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to test reliability of the scales, whereas Cohen's kappa tested inter-rater agreement for each parameter of the CANCRS. Construct validity results show that CANCRS and RbtGS efficiently reveal pain (P ? 0.05), while CPS does not (p > 0.05). Inter-rater reliability was very good for both CANCRS and CPS (ICC 0.88 V-V, 0.94 between V-S; ICC 0.97 V-V, 0.91 V-S) and good for RbtGS (ICC 0.77 V-V, 0.88 V-S); therefore, CPS reproducibility was better between veterinarians and students than between veterinarians. Inter-rater agreement between veterinarians and veterinary medicine students was moderate to very good for all the parameters included in the CANCRS (Cohen's kappa >0,60). In conclusion, it is possible to state that the CANCRS has construct validity and it is a reliable tool for use in clinical practice, when coping with many rabbits with morphological differences. It is easy and fast to use and enriches the RbtGS with some clinical parameters that should be monitored during any clinical examination, allowing for capture of the multidimensional aspect of pain.

SUBMITTER: Banchi P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7192371 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliability and construct validity of a composite pain scale for rabbit (CANCRS) in a clinical environment.

Banchi Penelope P Quaranta Giuseppe G Ricci Alessandro A Mauthe von Degerfeld Mitzy M

PloS one 20200430 4

A composite pain scale for assessing and quantifying pain in rabbits (CANCRS) has been designed merging the Rabbit Grimace Scale (RbtGS) and a scale including clinical parameters (CPS). Construct validity and inter-rater reliability were assessed for CANCRS, for RbtGS and for CPS, in order to test their potential to detect pain in a clinical setting. Rabbits (n = 116) were either hybrids or purebreds and they were independently evaluated by two raters, who could be veterinarians (V) or veterinar ...[more]

PMID: 32352960

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:Aim: In children, gait and posture assessment provides a crucial marker for the early characterization, surveillance and treatment evaluation of early onset ataxia (EOA). For reliable data entry of studies targeting at gait and posture improvement, uniform quantitative biomarkers are necessary. Until now, the pediatric test construct of gait and posture scores of the Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia sub-scale (SARA) is still unclear. In the present study, we aimed to validate the construct validity and reliability of the pediatric (SARAGAIT/POSTURE) sub-scale. Methods: We included 28 EOA patients [15.5 (6-34) years; median (range)]. For inter-observer reliability, we determined the ICC on EOA SARAGAIT/POSTURE sub-scores by three independent pediatric neurologists. For convergent validity, we associated SARAGAIT/POSTURE sub-scores with: (1) Ataxic gait Severity Measurement by Klockgether (ASMK; dynamic balance), (2) Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS; static balance), (3) Gross Motor Function Classification Scale -extended and revised version (GMFCS-E&R), (4) SARA-kinetic scores (SARAKINETIC; kinetic function of the upper and lower limbs), (5) Archimedes Spiral (AS; kinetic function of the upper limbs), and (6) total SARA scores (SARATOTAL; i.e., summed SARAGAIT/POSTURE, SARAKINETIC, and SARASPEECH sub-scores). For discriminant validity, we investigated whether EOA co-morbidity factors (myopathy and myoclonus) could influence SARAGAIT/POSTURE sub-scores. Results: The inter-observer agreement (ICC) on EOA SARAGAIT/POSTURE sub-scores was high (0.97). SARAGAIT/POSTURE was strongly correlated with the other ataxia and functional scales [ASMK (rs = -0.819; p < 0.001); PBS (rs = -0.943; p < 0.001); GMFCS-E&R (rs = -0.862; p < 0.001); SARAKINETIC (rs = 0.726; p < 0.001); AS (rs = 0.609; p = 0.002); and SARATOTAL (rs = 0.935; p < 0.001)]. Comorbid myopathy influenced SARAGAIT/POSTURE scores by concurrent muscle weakness, whereas comorbid myoclonus predominantly influenced SARAKINETIC scores. Conclusion: In young EOA patients, separate SARAGAIT/POSTURE parameters reveal a good inter-observer agreement and convergent validity, implicating the reliability of the scale. In perspective of incomplete discriminant validity, it is advisable to interpret SARAGAIT/POSTURE scores for comorbid muscle weakness.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Consumer food environments are increasingly being recognized as influential determinants of food purchasing and subsequent intake and health. We developed a tool to enable efficient, but relatively comprehensive, appraisal of the in-store food environment. The Store Scout mobile app facilitates the evaluation of product (availability and range), placement (visibility, accessibility, proximity to high-traffic areas, and location relative to other products), price (price promotion), and promotion (displays and advertising) across 7 categories of food products, with appraisal given immediately as scores (0-100, where a higher score is more in line with best practice). Primary end users are public health nutritionists and nutritionists employed by store organizations; however, store managers and staff are also potential end users. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to evaluate the reliability (interrater reliability and internal consistency), utility (distribution of scores), and construct validity (score by store type) of measurements using the Store Scout mobile app. METHODS:The Store Scout mobile app was used independently by 2 surveyors to evaluate the store environment in 54 stores: 34 metropolitan stores (9 small and 11 large supermarkets, 10 convenience stores, and 4 petrol stations) in Brisbane, Australia, and 20 remote stores (19 small supermarkets and 1 petrol station) in Indigenous Australian communities in Northern Australia. The agreement between surveyors in the overall and category scores was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Interrater reliability of measurement items was assessed using percentage agreement and the Gwet agreement coefficient (AC). Internal consistency was assessed by comparing the responses of items measuring similar aspects of the store environment. We examined the distribution of score values using boxplots and differences by store type using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS:The median difference in the overall score between surveyors was 4.4 (range 0.0-11.1), with an ICC of 0.954 (95% CI 0.914-0.975). Most measurement items had very good (n=74/196, 37.8%) or good (n=81/196, 41.3%) interrater reliability using the Gwet AC. A minimal inconsistency of measurement was found. Overall scores ranged from 19.2 to 81.6. There was a significant difference in score by store type (P<.001). Large Brisbane supermarkets scored highest (median 77.4, range 53.2-81.6), whereas small Brisbane supermarkets (median 63.9, range 41.0-71.3) and small remote supermarkets (median 63.8, range 56.5-74.9) scored significantly higher than Brisbane petrol stations (median 33.1, range 19.2-37.8) and convenience stores (median 39.0, range 22.4-63.8). CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest good reliability and internal consistency of food environment measurements using the Store Scout mobile app. We identified specific aspects that can be improved to further increase the reliability of this tool. We found a good distribution of score values and evidence that scoring could capture differences by store type in line with previous evidence, which gives an indication of construct validity. The Store Scout mobile app shows promise in its capability to measure and track the health-enabling characteristics of store environments.

Project description:Background and aimExperience of stigma towards methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) may be a barrier to the use of this treatment by people with opioid use disorder. We evaluated the factor structure, internal reliability, construct and criterion validity of a theory-based stigma measure, the Methadone Maintenance Treatment Stigma Mechanisms Scale (MMT-SMS) and compared this with the Substance Use Stigma Mechanism Scale (SU-SMS).DesignSurveys at the beginning and end of a prospective study together with records of drug use and treatment attendance during that study.SettingCommunity methadone clinic in the Northeastern USA.ParticipantsNinety-three participants who were receiving MMT; the average daily methadone dose was 84.8 mg/day (standard deviation = 28.39 mg/day).MeasurementsThe MMT-SMS uses a self-report questionnaire to assess three dimensions reflecting experiences of anticipated (nine items), enacted (nine items) and internalized stigma (seven items) specifically related to receiving MMT. Anticipated and enacted scales include three stigma source subscales (family, employers, health care workers; three items each). Responses are recorded on a five-point Likert-type scale, then averaged to produce the MMT-SMS scale/subscale scores. The SU-SMS is a self-report questionnaire to assess experiences of anticipated, enacted and internalized stigma regarding substance use history. Both scales were administered at the final parent study visit. Other measures included were assessed in the parent study and used to assess life-time and recent MMT (e.g. current MMT dose) and drug use experiences (e.g. past 30-day heroin injection).FindingsThe MMT-SMS demonstrated good internal reliability (α = 0.806-0.952 for components). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the seven-factor scale structure, distinguishing between experiences of anticipated, enacted and internalized stigma, and anticipated and enacted stigma source subscales (family, employers, health care workers) [root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.076, 90% confidence interval (CI) = 0.061-0.090, P-close = 0.003; confirmatory fit index (CFI) = 0.974; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.971]. Construct validity helped to distinguish the MMT-SMS from established substance use stigma constructs. Criterion validity observed associations with substance use experiences while on MMT, likely to predict future MMT success. Internalized MMT stigma was uniquely associated with daily MMT dose. Regarding criterion validity: anticipated MMT and enacted substance use stigma were associated with past 30-day heroin injection, MMT stigma uniquely associated with opioid use behaviors while receiving MMT, and substance use stigma broadly associated with injection-related behaviors.ConclusionsThe Methadone Maintenance Treatment Stigma Mechanisms Scale appears to be a reliable measure of methadone maintenance treatment stigma with robust validity in a sample of people with opioid use disorders receiving methadone maintenance treatment.

Dataset Information

Reliability and construct validity of a composite pain scale for rabbit (CANCRS) in a clinical environment.

Publications

Reliability and construct validity of a composite pain scale for rabbit (CANCRS) in a clinical environment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure