O Jones
Assessing acute itch intensity : general labelled magnitude scale is more reliable than classic visual analogue scale
Jones, O; Holle, Henning; Jones, Olivia; Schindler, Igor
Authors
Dr Henning Holle H.Holle@hull.ac.uk
Reader in Psychology / Leader of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience group (https://www.hull.ac.uk/neuroscience)
Olivia Jones
Professor Igor Schindler I.Schindler@hull.ac.uk
Reader in Psychology
Abstract
The reliable measurement of itch intensity is crucial, both in research as well as clinical contexts. For example, when the reliability of a measurement scale is unknown, it is impossible to determine whether a patient has changed sufficiently to be confident that the change is beyond that which could be attributed to measurement error (1). One factor that might influence the reliability of measurements is the type of rating scale used to assess itch intensity. Previous research (2-4) has documented the retest reliability of different rating scales for assessing chronic itch intensity. However, a retest reliability analysis of rating scales for acute experimental itch, induced using substances such as histamine or cowhage, is currently lacking. Here, we compare the test-retest reliability of three rating scales commonly used for this purpose. First, we considered the visual analogue scale in its classic form (cVAS), where participants indicate itch intensity on a line ranging from 0 (no itch) to 100 (the most intense itch imaginable). Second, we included a variant of the VAS, where an additional ‘Scratch Threshold’ marker is set at 33% (tVAS,5), defined as itching strong enough to be scratched (6). Finally, we considered the general Labelled Magnitude Scale (gLMS,7), where participants judge the magnitude of itch on a line with quasilogarithmically placed labels of “no sensation” at 0, “barely detectable” at 1, “weak” at 6, “moderate” at 17, “strong” at 35, “very strong” at 53 and “strongest imaginable sensation” at 100. Thus, all three scales have an identical range, but differ in the type and number of verbal labels provided.
Citation
Jones, O., Holle, H., Jones, O., & Schindler, I. (2017). Assessing acute itch intensity : general labelled magnitude scale is more reliable than classic visual analogue scale. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 97(3), 375-376. https://doi.org/10.2340/00015555-2584
Acceptance Date | Nov 17, 2016 |
---|---|
Online Publication Date | Nov 21, 2016 |
Publication Date | Jan 1, 2017 |
Deposit Date | Nov 17, 2016 |
Publicly Available Date | Nov 21, 2016 |
Journal | Acta dermato-venereologica |
Print ISSN | 0001-5555 |
Publisher | Society for Publication of Acta Dermato-Venereologica |
Peer Reviewed | Not Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 97 |
Issue | 3 |
Pages | 375-376 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.2340/00015555-2584 |
Keywords | Dermatology; General Medicine |
Public URL | https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/445303 |
Publisher URL | https://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/abstract/10.2340/00015555-2584 |
Additional Information | This is the authors' accepted manuscript of an article published in: Acta dermato-venereologica, 2017, v.97 issue 3. |
Contract Date | Nov 17, 2016 |
Files
Article.pdf
(254 Kb)
PDF
Copyright Statement
© 2017 Acta Dermato-Venereologica. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license.
You might also like
Human but not robotic gaze facilitates action prediction
(2022)
Journal Article
Downloadable Citations
About Repository@Hull
Administrator e-mail: repository@hull.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2025
Advanced Search