21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Validity and reliability of the Cold Discomfort Scale: a subjective judgement scale for the assessment of patient thermal state in a cold environment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Complementary measures for the assessment of patient thermoregulatory state, such as subjective judgement scales, might be of considerable importance in field rescue scenarios where objective measures such as body core temperature, skin temperature, and oxygen consumption are difficult to obtain. The objective of this study was to evaluate, in healthy subjects, the reliability of the Cold Discomfort Scale (CDS), a subjective judgement scale for the assessment of patient thermal state in cold environments, defined as test–retest stability, and criterion validity, defined as the ability to detect a difference in cumulative cold stress over time. Twenty-two healthy subjects performed two consecutive trials (test–retest). Dressed in light clothing, the subjects remained in a climatic chamber set to −20 °C for 60 min. CDS ratings were obtained every 5 min. Reliability was analysed by test–retest stability using weighted kappa coefficient that was 0.84 including all the 5-min interval measurements. When analysed separately at each 5-min interval the weighted kappa coefficients were was 0.48–0.86. Criterion validity was analysed by comparing median CDS ratings of a moving time interval. The comparison revealed that CDS ratings were significantly increased for every interval of 10, 15, and 30 min ( p < 0.001) but not for every interval of 5 min. In conclusion, in a prehospital scenario, subjective judgement scales might be a valuable measure for the assessment of patient thermal state. The results of this study indicated that, in concious patients, the CDS may be both reliable and valid for such purpose.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Practical statistics for medical research. Douglas G. Altman, Chapman and Hall, London, 1991. No. of pages: 611. Price: £32.00

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Practical statistics for medical researched

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The validity and reliability of pain measures in adults with cancer.

              To be most useful, clinical trials of cancer pain treatments should use pain measures that are both reliable and valid. A great variety of measures are now available that may be used to assess cancer pain. However, there are not yet any clear guidelines for selecting one or more measures over the others. The purpose of this article is to summarize the evidence concerning the validity and reliability of cancer pain measures. One hundred sixty-four articles were identified that provided psychometric data of pain measures among patients with cancer. The results indicate that commonly used single-item ratings of pain intensity are all valid and adequately reliable as measures of pain intensity, although some scales appear to be easier for patients with cancer to understand and to use than others. Multiple-item measures of pain intensity are reliable, but evidence concerning their validity is lacking. There is a paucity of research examining the psychometric properties of measures of cancer pain interference, pain relief, pain site, the temporal aspects of pain, and pain quality. This lack of evidence limits the conclusions that may be drawn concerning the reliability and validity of these other pain measures. Composite measures that combine ratings of pain intensity and pain interference into a single score appear to be both valid and reliable for describing patient populations, although their usefulness in clinical trials may be limited because they can obscure the contributions of intensity and interference to the total score. Proxy measures of cancer pain (pain ratings made by someone other than the patient) may be useful when patients are not able to provide pain ratings, but they should not be used as replacements for patient ratings when patient self-report measures are available. The discussion includes specific recommendations for selecting from among the available pain measures, as well as recommendations for future research into the assessment of cancer pain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +46-706678316 , +46-90771755 , peter.lundgren@surgery.umu.se
                otto.henriksson@surgery.umu.se
                kalev.kuklane@design.lth.se
                ingvar.holmer@design.lth.se
                peter.naredi@surgery.umu.se
                ulf.bjornstig@surgery.umu.se
                Journal
                J Clin Monit Comput
                J Clin Monit Comput
                Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
                Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht )
                1387-1307
                1573-2614
                6 December 2013
                6 December 2013
                2014
                : 28
                : 287-291
                Affiliations
                [ ]Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Perioperative Sciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
                [ ]The Thermal Environment Laboratory, Division of Ergonomics and Aerosol Technology, Department of Design Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
                Article
                9533
                10.1007/s10877-013-9533-7
                4024128
                24311022
                8b7d2272-2a9f-452b-8fb5-f39696713892
                © The Author(s) 2013

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

                History
                : 26 September 2012
                : 15 November 2013
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

                Medicine
                hypothermia,prehospital trauma care,emergency medical services,reliability,validity,subjective judgement scale,thermal comfort

                Comments

                Comment on this article