Validation of a structured questionnaire as an instrument to measure chronic pain in dogs on the basis of effects on health-related quality of life

M. Lesley Wiseman-Orr Institute of Comparative Medicine, Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK G61 1QH.

Search for other papers by M. Lesley Wiseman-Orr in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
E. Marian Scott Department of Statistics, Faculty of Information and Mathematical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK G61 1QH.

Search for other papers by E. Marian Scott in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Jacqueline Reid Institute of Comparative Medicine, Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK G61 1QH.

Search for other papers by Jacqueline Reid in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BMVS, PhD
, and
Andrea M. Nolan Institute of Comparative Medicine, Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK G61 1QH.

Search for other papers by Andrea M. Nolan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MVB, PhD

Abstract

Objective—To validate the use of a novel questionnaire as an instrument for measurement of chronic pain in dogs through its impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL).

Animals—108 dogs with chronic degenerative joint disease and 26 healthy dogs.

Procedures—Questionnaire responses were subjected to factor analysis (FA) and questionnaire scores to discriminant analysis to evaluate construct validity. Questionnaire scores were used to explore the potential of this instrument for minimizing respondent bias and for evaluative purposes.

Results—FA results revealed a sensible factor structure accounting for 65% of the variance in data, with factors identifiable as domains of HRQL in dogs affected by chronic pain. Further evidence for construct validity was provided when questionnaire scores were used to discriminate, on the basis of 218 questionnaires, between dogs with clinician-awarded pain scores of 0 and dogs with pain scores ≥ 1 (88% discrimination, with 95% of no-pain group dogs and 87% of some-pain group dogs correctly categorized). Use of the questionnaire provided minimized respondent bias.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Validation of the questionnaire as an instrument for discriminative and evaluative measurements of orthopedic chronic pain through its impact on HRQL in dogs was provided. Use of the questionnaire, with further testing and refinement, may support improved clinical decision making, facilitate development of evidence-based therapeutic options for chronic diseases, and help veterinarians and owners define humane end points in dogs.

Impact for Human Medicine—Information gained here may provide improved measurements of clinical change in animal studies that use dogs with naturally occurring chronic pain to evaluate novel human treatment protocols.

Abstract

Objective—To validate the use of a novel questionnaire as an instrument for measurement of chronic pain in dogs through its impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL).

Animals—108 dogs with chronic degenerative joint disease and 26 healthy dogs.

Procedures—Questionnaire responses were subjected to factor analysis (FA) and questionnaire scores to discriminant analysis to evaluate construct validity. Questionnaire scores were used to explore the potential of this instrument for minimizing respondent bias and for evaluative purposes.

Results—FA results revealed a sensible factor structure accounting for 65% of the variance in data, with factors identifiable as domains of HRQL in dogs affected by chronic pain. Further evidence for construct validity was provided when questionnaire scores were used to discriminate, on the basis of 218 questionnaires, between dogs with clinician-awarded pain scores of 0 and dogs with pain scores ≥ 1 (88% discrimination, with 95% of no-pain group dogs and 87% of some-pain group dogs correctly categorized). Use of the questionnaire provided minimized respondent bias.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Validation of the questionnaire as an instrument for discriminative and evaluative measurements of orthopedic chronic pain through its impact on HRQL in dogs was provided. Use of the questionnaire, with further testing and refinement, may support improved clinical decision making, facilitate development of evidence-based therapeutic options for chronic diseases, and help veterinarians and owners define humane end points in dogs.

Impact for Human Medicine—Information gained here may provide improved measurements of clinical change in animal studies that use dogs with naturally occurring chronic pain to evaluate novel human treatment protocols.

Contributor Notes

Supported by Pfizer Animal Health and the Ronald Miller Postgraduate Scholarship, University of Glasgow.

Presented in part as a poster at the 10th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations, Glasgow, UK, October 2004.

Address correspondence to Dr. Nolan.
  • 1.

    Gill TM. Quality of life assessment: values and pitfalls. J Royal Soc Med 1995;88:680682.

  • 2.

    WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 1995;41:14031409.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Stenner PHD, Cooper D, Skevington SM. Putting the Q into quality of life; the identification of subjective constructions of health-related quality of life using Q methodology. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:21612172.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Clark JD, Rager DR, Calpin JP. Animal well-being. II. Stress and distress. Lab Anim Sci 1997;47:571579.

  • 5.

    Fraser D, Weary DM & Pajor EA, et al. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Anim Welf 1997;6:187205.

  • 6.

    Dawkins MS. Animal suffering. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1980;1082.

  • 7.

    Duncan IJH, Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby MC, Hughes BO, eds. Animal welfare. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 1997;1931.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    McMillan FD. Quality of life in animals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;216:19041910.

  • 9.

    McMillan FD. The concept of quality of life in animals. In: McMillan F, ed. Mental health and well-being in animals. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 2005;183200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Wiseman-Orr ML, Nolan AM & Reid J, et al. Development of a questionnaire to measure the effects of chronic pain on health-related quality of life in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2004;65:10771084.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Streiner DL. Research methods in psychiatry. A checklist for evaluating the usefulness of rating scales. Can J Psychiatry 1993;38:140148.

  • 12.

    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995;1180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials.. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996;4956.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Jensen MP. Questionnaire validation: a brief guide for readers of the research literature. Clin J Pain 2003;19:345352.

  • 15.

    Dijkers M. Measuring quality of life: methodological issues. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999;78:286300.

  • 16.

    Sprangers MAG, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:743760.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Sandvik E, Diener E, Seidlitz L. Subjective well-being: the convergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures. J Pers Soc Psychol 1993;61:317342.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Gibson DR, Hudes ES, Donovan D. Estimating and correcting for response bias in self-reported HIV risk behavior. J Sex Res 1999;36:96101.

  • 19.

    Rogler LH, Mroczek DK & Fellows M, et al. The neglect of response bias in mental health research. J Nerv Ment Dis 2001;189:182187.

  • 20.

    Peterson NC. Assessment of pain scoring. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci 2004;45:7576.

  • 21.

    Vaillancourt J-P, Martineau G & Morrow M, et al. Construction of questionnaires and their use in veterinary medicine, in Proceedings. Soc Vet Epidemiol Prevent Med 1991;94106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Johnston CC. Psychometric issues in the measurement of pain. In: Finley GA, McGrath PJ, eds. Measurement of pain in infants and children: progress in pain research and management. Vol 10. Seattle: IASP Press, 1998;520.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Coste J, Bouée S & Ecosse E, et al. Methodological issues in determining the dimensionality of composite health measures using principal component analysis: case illustration and suggestions for practice. Qual Life Res 2005;14:641654.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Burgess C. University of Exeter. PSY2005: factor analysis. 2000. Available at: www.ex.ac.uk/Psychology/docs/courses/2016/fa/index.html. Accessed Sep 20, 2005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Garson GD. North Carolina State University. Factor analysis. Available at: www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm. Accessed Sep 20, 2005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH & Streiner DL, et al. Clinical impact versus factor analysis for quality of life questionnaire construction. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:233238.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Wolinsky FD, Wyrwich KW & Nienaber NA, et al. Generic versus disease-specific health status measures. Eval Health Prof 1998;21:216243.

  • 28.

    Manificat S, Dazord A & Langue J, et al. A new instrument to evaluate infant quality of life. MAPI Res Inst Qual Life Newslett 1999;23:78.

  • 29.

    Wheeler AH, Goolkasian P & Baird AC, et al. Development of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale. Item analysis, face, and criterion-related validity. Spine 1999;24:12901294.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS. PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care 2001;39:800812.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Yong H-H, Bell R & Workman B, et al. Psychometric properties of the pain attitudes questionnaire (revised) in adult patients with chronic pain. Pain 2003;104:673681.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Serpell JA, Hsu Y. Development and validation of a novel method for evaluating behavior and temperament in guide dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2001;72:347364.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Hsu Y, Serpell JA. Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:12931300.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Fayers PM, Hand DJ. Causal variables, indicator variables and measurements scales: an example from quality of life. J Royal Stat Soc 2002;165:121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Stallard P, Williams L & Velleman R, et al. The development and evaluation of the pain indicator for cognitively impaired children (PICIC). Pain 2002;98:145149.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Debillon T, Zupan V & Ravault N, et al. Development and initial validation of the EDIN scale, a new tool for assessing prolonged pain in preterm infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001;85:F36F40.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Varni JW, Seid M & Knight TS, et al. The PedsQL in pediatric oncology. Arthitis Rheum 2002;46:714725.

  • 38.

    Raat H, Bonsel GJ & Essink-Bot M-L, et al. Reliability and validity of comprehensive health status measures in children: the Child Health Questionnaire in relation to the Health Utilities Index. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:6776.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    StatSoft Inc. Principal components and factor analysis (1984–2003). Available at: www.statsoft.com/textbook/stfacan.html. Accessed Sep 20, 2005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    ACITS, The University of Texas at Austin. Factor analysis using SAS PROC FACTOR. Available at: www.utexas.edu/cc/docs/stat53.html. Accessed Sep 20, 2005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Darlington RB. Factor analysis using SAS PROC FACTOR. Available at: comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/factor.htm. Accessed Sep 22, 2005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Friendly M. Planning a factor analytic study. Available at: www.psych.yorku.ca/lab/psy6140/fa/facplan.htm. Accessed Sep 20, 2005.

  • 43.

    Schipper H, Clinch J & McMurray A, et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the Functional Living Index-Cancer: development and validation. J Clin Oncol 1984;2:472473.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Meenan RF, Mason JH & Anderson JJ, et al. AIMS2. The content and properties of a revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:110.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473483.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    Skevington SM. Investigating the relationship between pain and discomfort and quality of life, using the WHOQOL. Pain 1998;76:395406.

  • 47.

    Patronek GJ, Sperry E. Quality of life in long-term confinement. In: August J, ed. Consultations in feline international medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 2001;621634.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    McMillan FD. Maximizing quality of life in ill animals. JAm Anim Hosp Assoc 2003;39:227235.

  • 49.

    Matza LS, Swensen AR & Flood EM, et al. Assessment of health-related quality of life in children: a review of conceptual, methodological, and regulatory issues. Value Health 2004;7:7992.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50.

    Gauvain-Piquard A, Rodary C & Rezvani A, et al. The development of the DEGR: a scale to assess pain in young children with cancer. Eur J Pain 1999;3:165176.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51.

    Wojciechowska JI, Hewson CJ & Stryhn H, et al. Development of a discriminative questionnaire to assess nonphysical aspects of quality of life of dogs. Am J Vet Res 2005;66:14531460.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52.

    Wojciechowska JI, Hewson CJ & Stryhn H, et al. Evaluation of a questionnaire regarding nonphysical aspects of quality of life in sick and healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res 2005;66:14611467.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53.

    Yazbek KV, Fantoni DT. Validity of health-related quality-of-life scale for dogs with signs of pain secondary to cancer. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;226:13541358.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54.

    Arnold R, Ranchor AV & Sanderman R, et al. The relative contribution of domains of quality of life to overall quality of life for different chronic diseases. Qual Life Res 2004;13:883896.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55.

    Wall PD. Editorial. Pain 1976;2:1.

  • 56.

    Hansen BD. Assessment of pain in dogs: veterinary clinical studies. ILAR J 2003;44:197205.

  • 57.

    Karai L, Brown DC & Mannes AJ, et al. Deletion of vanilloid receptor 1—expressing primary afferent neurons for pain control. J Clin Invest 2004;113:13441352.

Advertisement