Phantom Limb Pain Rating Scale: A Scale Development Study

Abstract

Phantom Limb Pain Rating Scale: A Scale Development Study

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable scale to evaluate and measure phantom limb pain. Material and Methods: This study, which was designed in a methodological type, was conducted with a total of 258 patients. A demographics form and a draft scale developed by the research authors were used to collect the study data. Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 was used to provide descriptive statistics and reliability analyses for the study data. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used in the development of the phantom limb pain rating scale, and Reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were used for the study’s validity and reliability evaluations. Results: The Kuder-Richardson 20 value, which shows the internal consistency of the questions of the 16-item the rating scale, was found to be 0.921. The total score of the rating scale ranged from 1 to 16, with an average of 11.19±4.94. It was determined that the fit criterias and corrected chi-square values showed acceptable fit, and that the scale was both statistically significant and valid (p=0.001; p<0.01). Conclusion: The scale developed in this study was found to be a reliable and valid measurement tool for evaluating phantom limb pain in affected patients.

Keywords

• Amputation
• Pain Measurement
• Phantom limb pain
• Scale
• Pain

References

1. Yıldırım M, Kanan N. The effect of mirror therapy on the management of phantom limb pain. Agri 2016;28(3):127-34.
2. Kern U, Busch V, Rockland M, Kohl M, Birklein F. Prevalence and risk factors of phantom limb pain and phantom limb sensations in Germany: A nationwide field survey. Der Schmerz 2009;23:479-88.
3. Foell J, Bekrater-Bodmann R, Flor H, Cole J. Phantom limb pain after lower limb trauma: Origins and treatments. The international journal of lower extremity wounds 2011;10(4):224-235.
4. Richardson C, Crawford K, Milnes K, Bouch E, Kulkarni J. A clinical evaluation of postamputation phenomena including phantom limb pain after lower limb amputation in dysvascular patients. Pain Management Nursing 2015;16(4):561-569.
5. Ephraim PL, Wegener ST, MacKenzie EJ, Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE. Phantom pain, residual limb pain, and back pain in amputees: Results of a national survey. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 2005;86(10):1910-1919.
6. Sato K, Fukumori S, Matsusaki T, Maruo T, Ishikawa S, Nishie H, et al. Nonimmersive virtual reality mirror visual feedback therapy and its application for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: an open-label pilot study. Pain medicine 2010;11(4):622-629.
7. Weeks SR, Anderson-Barnes VC, Tsao JW. Phantom limb pain: Theories and therapies. The neurologist 2010;16(5):277-286.
8. Rothgangel AS, Braun S, Schulz RJ, Kraemer M, de Witte L, Beurskens A, Smeets RJ. The PACT trial: PAtient Centered Telerehabilitation: Effectiveness of software-supported and traditional mirror therapy in patients with phantom limb pain following lower limb amputation: protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 2015;61(1):42.

9. Richardson C, Kulkarni J. A review of the management of phantom limb pain: Challenges and solutions. Journal of pain research 2017;10:1861-1870.
10. Limakatso K, Bedwell GJ, Madden VJ, Parker R. The prevalence and risk factors for phantom limb pain in people with amputations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one 2020;15(10):e0240431.
11. Yeşilyurt S, Çapraz C. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kullanılan kapsam geçerliği için bir yol haritası. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2018;20(1):251-264.
12. Yeşilyurt M, Faydalı S. Ağrı değerlendirmesinde tek boyutlu ölçeklerin kullanımı. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2020;23(3):444-451.
13. Kikkert S, Mezue M, Slater DH, Johansen-Berg H, Tracey I, Makin TR. Motor correlates of phantom limb pain. Cortex 2017;95:29-36.
14. Kaur A, Guan Y. Phantom limb pain: A literature review. Chinese journal of traumatology 2018;21(6):366-368.
15. Casale R, Ceccherelli F, Labeeb AAEM, Biella GE. Phantom limb pain relief by contralateral myofascial injection with local anaesthetic in a placebo-controlled study: preliminary results. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2009;41(6):418-422.
16. Cole J, Crowle S, Austwick G, Henderson Slater D. Exploratory findings with virtual reality for phantom limb pain; from stump motion to agency and analgesia. Disability and rehabilitation 2009;31(10):846-854.
17. Saczynski JS, McManus DD, Goldberg RJ. Commonly used data-collection approaches in clinical research. The American journal of medicine 2013;126(11):946-950.
18. Colloca L, Ludman T, Bouhassira D, Baron R, Dickenson AH, Yarnitsky D, Freeman R, Truini A, Attal N, Finnerup NB, Eccleston C, Kalso E, Bennett DL, Dworkin RH, Raja SN. Neuropathic pain. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017 Feb 16;3:17002.
19. Kucyi A, Davis KD. The Neural Code for Pain: From Single-Cell Electrophysiology to the Dynamic Pain Connectome. Neuroscientist. 2017 Aug;23(4):397-414.
20. Olesen AE, Andresen T, Staahl C, Drewes AM. Human experimental pain models for assessing the therapeutic efficacy of analgesic drugs. Pharmacol Rev. 2012 Jul;64(3):722-779.
21. Ossipov MH, Morimura K, Porreca F. Descending pain modulation and chronification of pain. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2014 Jun;8(2):143-151.
22. Diers M, Christmann C, Koeppe C, Ruf M, Flor H. Mirrored, imagined and executed movements differentially activate sensorimotor cortex in amputees with and without phantom limb pain. Pain. 2010;149(2):296-304.
23. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological assessment 2019;31(12):1412.
24. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications, 2015.
25. Blanca MJ, Alarcón R, Arnau J, Bono R, Bendayan R. Effect of variance ratio on ANOVA robustness: Might 1.5 be the limit? Behav Res Methods. 2018 Jun;50(3):937-962.
26. Plöderl M, Hengartner MP. What are the chances for personalised treatment with antidepressants? Detection of patient-by-treatment interaction with a variance ratio meta-analysis. BMJ open 2019;9(12): e034816.
27. Güvendir MA, Özkan YÖ. Item removal strategies conducted in exploratory factor analysis: A comparative study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education 2022;9(1):165-180.
28. Kisa EP, Cavlak U, Mercan D. (2024). Pain assessment preferences in healthcare providers: A survey from Turkey. İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi 2024;9(1):101-104.