Cover American Journal of Veterinary Research
American Journal of Veterinary Research
ISSN:
0002-9645
Publication Date:
01 Jun 2009
  • 1.

    Schulz KS, Cook JL, Kapatkin A, et al. Commentary. Evidence-based surgery: time for change. Vet Surg 2006;35:697–699.

  • 2.

    Cook JL. Outcomes-based patient care in veterinary surgery: what is an outcome measure? Vet Surg 2007;36:187–188.

  • 3.

    Kapatkin AS. Outcome-based medicine and its application in clinical surgical practice. Vet Surg 2007;36:515–518.

  • 4.

    DeVellis RF. Scale development—theory and applications. Vol 26. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications Inc, 2003.

  • 5.

    Hielm-Björkman AK, Kuusela E, Liman A, et al. Evaluation of methods for assessment of pain associated with chronic osteoarthritis in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;222:1552–1558.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Hudson JT, Slater MR, Taylor L, et al. Assessing repeatability and validity of a visual analogue scale questionnaire for use in assessing pain and lameness in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2004;65:1634–1643.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Wiseman-Orr ML, Scott EM, Reid J, et al. 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. Am J Vet Res 2006;67:1826–1836.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Brown DC, Boston RC, Coyne JC, et al. Development and psychometric testing of an instrument designed to measure chronic pain in dogs with osteoarthritis. Am J Vet Res 2007;68:631–637.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications Inc, 1979;9–70.

  • 10.

    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995;4–161.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGrawHill Book Co, 1978;86–113, 225–325.

  • 12.

    Welsh EM, Gettinby G, Nolan AM. Comparison of a visual analogue scale and a numerical rating scale for assessment of lameness, using sheep as a model. Am J Vet Res 1993;54:976–983.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Quinn MM, Keuler NS, Lu Y, et al. Evaluation of agreement between numerical rating scales, visual analogue scoring scales, and force plate gait analysis in dogs. Vet Surg 2007;36:360–367.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Principal components and factor analysis. In: Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2007;607–675.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Kline P. Psychometric theory and method. In: The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge, 1993;5–170.

  • 16.

    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient A and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297–334.

  • 17.

    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 1988.

  • 18.

    Hielm-Björkman A, Tulamo R-M, Salonen H, et al. Evaluating a complementary therapy for moderate to severe canine osteoarthritis. Part I: green-lipped mussel (Perna canaliculus). Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2007;doi: 10.1093/ecam/nem136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Hielm-Björkman A, Tulamo R-M, Salonen H, et al. Evaluating a complementary therapy for moderate to severe canine osteoarthritis. Part II: a homeopathic combination preparation (Zeel). Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2007;doi: 10.1093/ecam/nem143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Budsberg SC. The randomized clinical trial. Vet Surg 1991;20:326–328.

  • 21.

    Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637–639.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA, et al. Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain 2000;88:287–294.

  • 24.

    Akhtar-Danesh N. A review of statistical methods for analyzing pain measurements. Eur J Pain 2001;5:457–463.

  • 25.

    Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191–1194.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    MacPherson H, White A, Cummings M, et al. Standards for reporting interventions in controlled trials of acupuncture—the STRICTA recommendations. Acupunct Med 2002;20:22–25.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Asai T. Confidence in statistical analysis. Br J Anaesth 2002;89:807–810.

  • 28.

    Turk DC, Dworkin RH. What should be the core outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials? Arthritis Res Ther 2004;6:151–154.

  • 29.

    Holtsinger RH, Parker RB, Beale BS, et al. The therapeutic efficacy of carprofen (Rimadyl-V) in 209 clinical cases of canine degenerative joint disease. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1992;5:140–144.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Brown DC. Sources and handling of losses to follow-up in parallel-group randomized clinical trials in dogs and cats: 63 trials (2000–2005). Am J Vet Res 2007;68:694–698.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:141–151.

  • 32.

    Cattell RB. A guide to statistical techniques. In: The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum Press, 1978;17–32.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Waxman AS, Robinson DA, Evans RB, et al. Relationship between objective and subjective assessment of limb function in normal dogs with an experimentally induced lameness. Vet Surg 2008;37:241–246.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Vasseur PB, Johnson AL, Budsberg SC, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of the efficacy of carprofen, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, in the treatment of osteoarthritis in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1995;206:807–811.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Editorial Type:
Bone, Joint, and Cartilage

Psychometric testing of the Helsinki chronic pain index by completion of a questionnaire in Finnish by owners of dogs with chronic signs of pain caused by osteoarthritis

Anna K. Hielm-Björkman DVM, PhD1, Hannu Rita PhD2, and Riitta-Mari Tulamo DVM, PhD3
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Fin-00014, Finland.
  • | 2 Department of Forest Resource Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Fin-00014, Finland.
  • | 3 Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Fin-00014, Finland.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.70.6.727
Volume/Issue:
Volume 70: Issue 6
Online Publication Date:
01 Jun 2009
Restricted access
Reprints and Permissions Purchase Article

Abstract

Objective—To determine the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of a published chronic pain index by completion of a questionnaire in Finnish by owners of dogs with chronic signs of pain caused by osteoarthritis.

Animals—61 client-owned dogs with osteoarthritis.

Procedures—Validity, internal consistency, and repeatability testing of the questionnaire were evaluated by completion of questions in Finnish by owners of 61 dogs; the questionnaire was named the Helsinki chronic pain index (HCPI). Sensitivity testing of the questionnaire was determined from data of 2 smaller groups of dogs treated with carprofen (n = 17) or placebo (17). Owners completed the questionnaire 5 times during a 16-week period. Psychometric properties of the HCPI were evaluated.

Results—Principal component analysis yielded only a single stable component, indicating that the HCPI was best explained as an 11-item single construct index of chronic pain. Changes in the HCPI correlated well with change in quality of life and with change in the mobility visual analogue scale (r = 0.72 and r = 0.67, respectively), indicating a high predictive validity. Internal consistency (Cronbach A value = 0.82) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84 for items and 0.92 for the HCPI) were high. Changes in scores (from baseline to treatment and back to no treatment) between the carprofen treatment group and placebo control group were significant, indicating high sensitivity.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The Finnish version of the HCPI provided a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessment of response to treatment in dogs with osteoarthritis.

Abstract

Objective—To determine the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of a published chronic pain index by completion of a questionnaire in Finnish by owners of dogs with chronic signs of pain caused by osteoarthritis.

Animals—61 client-owned dogs with osteoarthritis.

Procedures—Validity, internal consistency, and repeatability testing of the questionnaire were evaluated by completion of questions in Finnish by owners of 61 dogs; the questionnaire was named the Helsinki chronic pain index (HCPI). Sensitivity testing of the questionnaire was determined from data of 2 smaller groups of dogs treated with carprofen (n = 17) or placebo (17). Owners completed the questionnaire 5 times during a 16-week period. Psychometric properties of the HCPI were evaluated.

Results—Principal component analysis yielded only a single stable component, indicating that the HCPI was best explained as an 11-item single construct index of chronic pain. Changes in the HCPI correlated well with change in quality of life and with change in the mobility visual analogue scale (r = 0.72 and r = 0.67, respectively), indicating a high predictive validity. Internal consistency (Cronbach A value = 0.82) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84 for items and 0.92 for the HCPI) were high. Changes in scores (from baseline to treatment and back to no treatment) between the carprofen treatment group and placebo control group were significant, indicating high sensitivity.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The Finnish version of the HCPI provided a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessment of response to treatment in dogs with osteoarthritis.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Hielm-Björkman.