Reliability and standardization in the assessment of self-reported headache pain

CollinsJr., Frank L.; Thompson, J. Kevin

doi:10.1007/bf01322419

Cited by 30 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Epstein and Abel procedure would also appear to meet the adequacy criteria suggested by Collins and Thompson (1979): (1) it is a simple procedure, and easier for subjects to follow; (2) it provides data, comparable to those from other procedures, that have the capacity to reflect relevant, representative pain information; and (3) it permits similar evaluations of reliability when compared to the Budzynski et al 2-hr rating system.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…It is noteworthy that Epstein and Abel were prompted to change to a four time per day recording when they found that clients using the intensive self-monitoring procedure were consistently recalling pain levels from memory prior to subsequent sessions. However, Collins and Thompson (1979) found that even the four times day procedure resulted in 40% noncompliance with recording requirements (these subjects, too, were retrospectively recording) in a college student (nonclinical) population monitoring headaches. Techniques designed to assess and control retrospective pain recording have included requiring subjects to turn in (Bakal & Kaganov, 1976) or mail in (Frederiksen, Prue, & Martin, 1978) monitoring forms daily, or systematically providing subjects with unobtrusively marked and dated selfmonitoring forms .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Most authors have utilized this scale by having patients record pain levels using a fairly intensive self-monitoring regime either hourly (Budzynski et al, 1973) or bihourly (Haynes, Griffin, Mooney, & Parise, 1975). However, these procedures do not satisfy the first criterion proposed by Collins and Thompson (1979). In addition, patients utilizing these techniques have been observed to make retrospective recordings rather than record pain levels as instructed (Epstein & Abel, 1977).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In response to this lack of standardization, Collins and Thompson (1979) have recommended three criteria for selecting a self-monitoring procedure. They note that the selected technique should (1) simple and easy to use (diffiCult or time-consuming procedures will result in subject noncompliance), (2) capable of eliciting headache information necessary for gauging change in pain levels, and (3) structured to permit an evaluation of reliability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing self-report of pain: A comparison of two recording procedures

CollinsJr.

Martin

1980

Journal of Behavioral Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing self-report of pain: A comparison of two recording procedures

CollinsJr.

Martin

1980

Journal of Behavioral Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This 'timesampling' procedure has well-established reliability (Collins & Thompson, 1979) and validity (Blanchard, Andrasik, Neff, Jurish, & O'Keefe, 1981) and is generally regarded as the 'gold standard' in behavioral headache research (Andrasik, Lipchik, McCrory, & Whitrock, 2005). Medication consumption was also recorded in daily diaries (type, dosage and time taken).…”

Section: Headaches and Medication Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive behavior therapy for comorbid migraine and/or tension-type headache and major depressive disorder: An exploratory randomized controlled trial

Martin

Aiello

Gilson

et al. 2015

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have demonstrated comorbidity between migraine and tension-type headache on the one hand, and depression on the other. Presence of depression is a negative prognostic indicator for behavioral treatment of headaches. Despite the recognised comorbidity, there is a limited research literature evaluating interventions designed for comorbid headaches and depression. Sixty six participants (49 female, 17 male) suffering from migraine and/or tension-type headache and major depressive disorder were randomly allocated to a Routine Primary Care control group or a Cognitive Behavior Therapy group that also received routine primary care. The treatment program involved 12 weekly 50-min sessions administered by clinical psychologists. Participants in the treatment group improved significantly more than participants in the control group from pre-to post-treatment on measures of headaches, depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Improvements achieved with treatment were maintained at four month follow-up. Comorbid anxiety disorders were not a predictor of response to treatment, and the only significant predictor was gender (men improved more than women). The new integrated treatment program appears promising and worthy of further investigation.

show abstract

Headaches

Andrasik¹,

Walch²

2003

Handbook of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter reviews headache classification, measurement, and treatment. Current measurement approaches chiefly utilize daily pain diaries, but other approaches have been investigated (multiple dimensions, social validation, behavior motivated by pain, and impact and disability). Pocket computers are likely to used extensively in the future. Numerous individual studies, meta‐analytic analyses, and task force reviews have shown that a number of behavioral treatments (relaxation, biofeedback, and CBT), administered by various formats (individual, minimal contact, group) are efficacious for uncomplicated forms of migraine and tension‐type headache, that improvement rates appear to rival those for pharmacological treatments, and that certain treatment combinations can be more efficacious than single modality approaches. People experiencing cluster, menstrual, posttraumatic, drug‐induced, or daily, unremitting headaches or certain comorbid conditions present special challenges that can require integrative, multidisciplinary, and intensive treatment approaches. Most of the research to date has been conducted in specialized research or treatment centers, with patients who have been highly selected. Importing treatments to the settings where they are most needed (primary care) and investigating parameters for optimizing success will occupy much research time in the near term, as will Internet delivery. Although it is clear that certain behavioral treatments are efficacious, the mechanisms by which they operate are not well understood. More recent accounts of pathophysiology for both of the major forms of headache have shifted from peripheral and vascular models to models that focus on central nervous system dysfunction (central sensitization for tension‐type headache and central excitability for migraine). Recognition of this will certainly lead to development of new psychophysiological assessment and treatment approaches.

show abstract

Reliability and standardization in the assessment of self-reported headache pain

Abstract: The efficacy of a treatment intervention for head pain is typically evaluated by self-reported data. Self-monitoring

Cited by 30 publications

References 50 publications

Assessing self-report of pain: A comparison of two recording procedures

Assessing self-report of pain: A comparison of two recording procedures

Cognitive behavior therapy for comorbid migraine and/or tension-type headache and major depressive disorder: An exploratory randomized controlled trial

Headaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About