Cross‐validation of the Children's and Infants' Postoperative Pain Scale in Brazilian Children

Alves, Maria Cecília Goi Porto; Carvalho, Paulo Roberto Antonacci; Wagner, Mário Bernardes; Castoldi, Alan; Becker, Michele Michelin; Silva, Cláudia C.

doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2008.00192.x

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite a limited training with reference to time, the three raters showed a fairly high agreement regarding both pain assessment tools’ items (range CHIPPS: 0.918–0.981, CHIPPS‐ADJ: 0.900–0.986, NFCS‐R: 0.910–0.980). Interrater reliabilities for the NFCS‐R were comparable to those established in the literature (Grunau et al, ), interrater reliabilities for the CHIPPS/CHIPPS‐ADJ were higher than those reported in the literature (0.89–0.93; Alves et al, ; Buettner & Finke, ; Suraseranivongse et al, ), presumably due to the large amount of time that had been spent in advance to clarify coding criteria for the CHIPPS(‐ADJ) items because of the unavailability of a manual.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Good reliability indices were established. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.92 to 0.96 (Buettner & Finke, ), interrater reliabilites from 0.89 to 0.93 (Alves et al, ; Buettner & Finke, ; Suraseranivongse et al, ). With regard to validity, correlation with the Toddler‐Preschooler Postoperative Pain Scale (von Baeyer & Spagrud, ) was 0.45 and the administration of potent analgesics in infants led to a reduction in the CHIPPS values (Buettner & Finke, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of two neonatal pain assessment tools (Children and Infant’s Postoperative Pain Scale and the Neonatal Facial Coding System—Revised) and their relations to clinicians’ intuitive pain estimates

Kappesser

Laffolie

Faas

et al. 2018

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many neonatal observational pain assessment tools are available. Their application in clinical settings, however, has been limited. A further difficulty for decision makers may be to choose among the variety of available tools the appropriate one(s) for their patients. Aims of the present study were (1) to compare two commonly cited neonatal pain assessment tools, the Neonatal Facial Coding System—Revised (NFCS‐R) and the Children and Infant’s Postoperative Pain Scale (CHIPPS), with regard to their psychometric qualities and (2) to explore intuitive clinicians’ ratings by relating them to the tools’ items. Methods Three coders applied both pain assessment tools to videos of 44 neonates who were videotaped while undergoing a painful and a stressful procedure. Clinicians rated the pain neonates experienced on a numerical rating scale. Analyses of variances and regression analyses were used to investigate whether tools could discriminate between the procedures and whether tools’ items were predictors of intuitive clinicians’ ratings. Results Interrater reliability, internal consistency and relative convergent validity were high for both assessment tools. Both tools discriminated between painful and stressful situations equally well. Roughly one third of variance in clinicians’ intuitive ratings could be explained by items of each tool, however, no single item was found to be a significant predictor. Conclusions Both pain assessment tools performed equally well regarding psychometric comparisons. Therefore, clinical utility needs to be considered when having to choose. Possibilities of improvement for both tools were identified. Cues clinicians base their intuitive pain judgements need to be further investigated. Significance Psychometric comparisons of neonatal assessment tools provide useful information that can help health care professionals to choose among tools and researchers to improve them. Both tools compared here performed psychometrically equally well. Their clinical utility, however, can be improved, for example by providing a manual (CHIPPS) and training opportunities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of two neonatal pain assessment tools (Children and Infant’s Postoperative Pain Scale and the Neonatal Facial Coding System—Revised) and their relations to clinicians’ intuitive pain estimates

Kappesser

Laffolie

Faas

et al. 2018

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CHIPPS, RIPS and NAPI associated the three following behavioral indicators: facial expression, crying and motor activity, as well as others, such as response to touch in NAPI, consolability and response to touch 1725 - 27 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A CHIPPS, a RIPS e a NAPI associaram os três indicadores comportamentais: expressão facial, choro e atividade motora, além de outras, como resposta ao toque na NAPI, consolabilidade e resposta ao toque 1725 - 27 …”

Section: Resultsunclassified

Pain assessment scales in newborns: integrative review

Melo¹,

Lélis²,

Moura³

et al. 2014

Rev. paul. pediatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sum of each item determines the total score, which can result in values ranging from 0 to 10 points. In CHIPPS, the higher the score, the greater the intensity of pain (8) . Data collection took place over a period of 4 months and was performed by two observers: observer A was one of the authors of the study, while observer B was a nurse or nursing technician responsible for neonate care during that shift.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validação da Échelle Douleur Inconfort Nouveau-Né para a cultura brasileira

Dias

Gasparino

Carmona

et al. 2018

Rev. esc. enferm. USP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Brazilian version of the Échelle Douleur Inconfort Nouveau-Né, which measures prolonged pain in neonates. Method: A methodological study carried out with 96 neonates. The Brazilian versions of the Échelle Douleur Inconfort Nouveau-Né and the Children's and Infants' Postoperative Pain Scale were used for data collection. For reliability, equivalence measured by intraobserver agreement and homogeneity were considered. To evaluate the validity, the convergent construct approach was considered correlating the Brazilian versions of the Échelle Douleur Inconfort Nouveau-Né and the Children's and Infants' Postoperative Pain Scale. Results: In assessing reliability, the coefficient of agreement between observers varied between 0.64 and 0.85 for the items that make up the instrument, and 0.96 for the total score. Cronbach's alpha was 0.82. Regarding the convergent validity evaluation, Spearman correlation coefficient between the values found for both scales was 0.79 (p< 0.0001). Conclusion: The Brazilian version of the Échelle Douleur Inconfort Nouveau-Né is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing prolonged pain in neonates.

show abstract

Cross‐validation of the Children's and Infants' Postoperative Pain Scale in Brazilian Children

Abstract: Based on the results obtained, we can infer that CHIPPS is a valid and reliable tool for Brazilian children aged 0 to 5 years old.

Cited by 23 publications

References 21 publications

Comparison of two neonatal pain assessment tools (Children and Infant’s Postoperative Pain Scale and the Neonatal Facial Coding System—Revised) and their relations to clinicians’ intuitive pain estimates

Comparison of two neonatal pain assessment tools (Children and Infant’s Postoperative Pain Scale and the Neonatal Facial Coding System—Revised) and their relations to clinicians’ intuitive pain estimates

Pain assessment scales in newborns: integrative review

Validação da Échelle Douleur Inconfort Nouveau-Né para a cultura brasileira

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About