Artifact in pain ratings, its implications for test-retest reliability, and correction by a new scaling procedure

  • Ephrem Fernandez


The conventionally employed procedure for rating ischemic pain was found to produce a degree of response bias associated with the ceiling points of the scale used. A new approach permitting open-ended ratings followed by transformation of these ratings into a common decile scale provided far greater test-retest reliability. This was explained largely in terms of the attenuation of rating artifact. The new procedure also gave rise to consistently linear functions for ischemic pain. Implications are raised for the measurement of pain as well as other psychological continua.

Key words

ischemic pain rating artifact just-noticeable difference test-retest reliability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beecher, H. K. (1957). The measurement of pain.Pharmacological Review, 9, 59–209.Google Scholar
  2. Beecher, H. K. (1959).Measurement of subjective responses. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beecher, H. K. (1975). Quantification of the subjective pain experience. In M. Weisenberg (Ed.),Pain: Clinical and experimental perspectives (pp. 56–66). St. Louis: C. V. Mosby.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, C. R., Casey, K. L., Dubner, R., Foley, K. M., Gracely, R. H., & Reading, A. E. (1985). Pain measurement: An overview.Pain, 22, 1–31.Google Scholar
  5. Fox, C. D., Steger, H. G., & Jennison, J. H. (1979). Ratio scaling of pain perception with the submaximum effort tourniquet technique.Pain, 7, 21–29.Google Scholar
  6. Gelfand, S. (1964). The relationship of experimental pain tolerance to pain threshold.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 18, 35–42.Google Scholar
  7. Hardy, J. D., Wolff, H. G., & Goodell, H. (1952).Pain sensations and reactions. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  8. Hilgard, E. (1967). A quantitative study of pain and its reduction through hypnotic suggestion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 57, 1581–1586.Google Scholar
  9. Laszlo, J. I., & Bairstow, P. J. (1971). The compression block technique: A note on procedure.Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 313–317.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, T., Pickering, G. W., & Rothschild, P. (1931). Observations upon muscular pain in intermittent claudication.Heart, 15, 359–383.Google Scholar
  11. Moore, P. A., Duncan, G. H., Scott, D. S., Gregg, J. M., & Ghia, J. N. (1979). The submaximal effort tourniquet test: Its use in evaluating experimental and chronic pain.Pain, 6, 375–382.Google Scholar
  12. Posner, J. (1984). A modified submaximal effort tourniquet technique for evaluation of analgesics in healthy volunteers.Pain, 19, 143–151.Google Scholar
  13. Postlethwaite, R., Grieve, N., Santacroce, T., Renfree, L., Wilson, G., & Peck, C. (1980). An analysis of pain produced by the submaximum effort tourniquet test. In C. Peck & M. Wallace (Eds.),Problems in pain: Proceedings of the First Australia-New Zealand Conference on Pain. (pp. 128–135). Sydney: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Procacci, P., Zoppi, M., & Maresca, M. (1979). Experimental pain in man.Pain, 6, 123–140.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, G. M., & Beecher, H. K. (1968). Experimental production of pain in man: Sensitivity of a new method to 600 mg of aspirin.Clinical and Pharmacological Therapeutics, 10, 213–216.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, G. M., Egbert, L. D., Markowitz, R. A., Mosteller, F., & Beecher, H. K. (1966). An experimental pain method sensitive to morphine in man: The submaximal effort tourniquet technique.Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 154, 324–332.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, G. M., Lowenstein, E., Hubbard, J. H., & Beecher, H. K. (1968). Experimental pain produced by the submaximal effort tourniquet technique: Further evidence of validity.Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 163, 468–474.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, G. M., Chiang, H. T., Kitz, R. J., & Anton, A. (1974). Accupuncture and experimentally induced pain. In J. J. Bonica (Ed.),Advances in neurology, volume 4: International Symposium on Pain (pp. 827–832). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sternbach, R. A., Murphy, R. W., Timmermans, G., Greenhoot, J. H., & Akeson, W. H. (1974). Measuring the severity of clinical pain. In J. J. Bonica (Ed.),Advances in neurology, volume 4: International Symposium on Pain (pp. 281–288). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
  20. Turk, D. C. (1977).A coping skills-training approach for the control of experimentally-produced pain. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. von Frey, M. (1897). Untersuchungen iiber die Sinnesfunctionen der menschlichen Haut. I. Druckempfindungen und Schmerz. Ber. Verhandl. Sachs. Ges. Wiss. Leipzig.Math-Phys. Kl., 49, 169–266.Google Scholar
  22. von Graffenried, B., Adler, R., Abt, K., Nuesch, E., & Spiegel, R. (1978). The influence of anxiety and pain sensitivity on experimental pain in man.Pain, 4, 253–263.Google Scholar
  23. Wolff, B. B. (1977). The role of laboratory pain induction methods in the systematic study of human pain.Acupuncture and Electro-Therapeutic Research, 2, 271–305.Google Scholar
  24. Wolff, B. B. (1980). Measurement of human pain. In J. J. Bonica (Ed.),Pain (pp. 173–189). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ephrem Fernandez
    • 1
  1. 1.Western Psychiatric Institute and ClinicUniversity of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburgh

Personalised recommendations