Pain Assessment Week 5

Essay by spadekingUniversity, Bachelor'sA, January 2014

download word file, 2 pages 0.0

Running Head: Week 5

Pain Assessment Tool for Postoperative Pain

[Writer Name]

[Institute Name] 

Pain Assessment Tool for Postoperative Pain


A study by Scott and Huskisson (1976) (N = 100) found no significant differences between the distribution of scores measured in the vertical and horizontal VAS. The ratio between these two scales also proved to be very high (r = 0,99, P <0,001), adding to the reality.


Some authors (Kremer et al. 1981, McDowall and Newall 1987) argue that the VAS confusing. Nevertheless, it was reported that only 7% of respondents could not use it after one explanation (Huskisson 1974). Although only a small proportion of respondents had difficulty completing the VAS, it seems appropriate to give an explanation and an example will be given to respondents prior to departure. As Katz and Melzack (1999) argue, since the clear instructions of its simplicity and brevity of administration / scoring, the minimum intrusiveness and conceptual simplicity outweigh its disadvantages.

Another criticism relates to the fact that the VAS is designed for presentation and combination of different levels within a standardized framework of the ratio of points. Chapman et al. (1985) argue that, although scores are points on the ratio of scales, there is no evidence that the actual number of respondents used in this way. However, the fact that patients may not be aware of how the VAS is designed, can lead to, the measures were more objective picture of the severity of pain. Respondents were simply asked to indicate what level of pain they experienced at anchor between two points, and this is measured by the researcher later.

Motivational / Affective

Motivational / affective component of pain is usually measured in relation to its subjective as well as the sensory aspects, seeking thus to assess the...