Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Parsons, S; Carnes, D; Pincus, Tamar; Foster, N; Breen, A; Vogel, S; Underwood, M (2006)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: PRIMARY-CARE, QUESTIONNAIRE, Research Article, LOW-BACK-PAIN, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Faculty of Science\Psychology, Diseases of the musculoskeletal system, RC925-935, RA



Current measures of pain assess the relative contribution of pain in different body regions to the overall impact of pain. We developed a series of questions to measure the relative 'troublesomeness' of pain in different body regions (the "troublesomeness grid"). The study aimed to determine whether the "troublesomeness grid" is an appropriate measure to assess the severity of pain in different body regions, allowing the comparative severity of pain in different body regions to be assessed.


We used data from a pilot for a population survey of pain (N = 205) and from the population survey itself (N = 2504) to assess the 'troublesomeness grid's performance. Specifically, its face and content validity using overall and item non-completion rates; its criterion related validity by exploring the relationship between troublesomeness and standard measures of pain, disability, distress and health utility for the five body regions most commonly affected by chronic pain; and its reliability and reproducibility in a test/re-test study.


The troublesomeness grid appeared to have good face validity as it had good completion rates. It also appeared to have good content validity as the percentage agreement between the grid and the pain manikin was high (over 90%). In terms of criterion related validity, troublesomeness was most strongly correlated with pain intensity and health related quality of life, but less with disability and distress. The test-retest reliability was between 80% and 90% for the majority of body regions examined.


The troublesomeness grid is well completed and appears to be an appropriate tool to assess the comparative severity of pain in different body regions.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. McCracken LM, Eccleston C: Coping or acceptance: what to do about chronic pain? Pain 2003, 105:197-204.
    • 2. Smith BH, Penny KI, Purves AM, Munro C, Wilson B, Grimshaw J, Chambers WA, Smith WC: The chronic pain grade questionnaire: validation and reliability in postal research. Pain 1997, 71:141-7.
    • 3. Von Korff MV, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, Dworkin SF: Grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain 1992, 50:133-49.
    • 4. Roland M, Fairbank J: The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionaire. Spine 2000, 25:3115-24.
    • 5. Bolton JE, Fish RG: Responsiveness of the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. European Journal of Chiropractic 1997, 45(1):9-14.
    • 6. Steen N, Hutchinson A, McColl E, Eccles MP, Hewison J, Meadows KA, Blades SM, Fowler P: Development of a symptom based outcome measure for asthma. BMJ 1994, 309:1065-8.
    • 7. Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB: Assessing health related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine 1995, 20:1899-908.
    • 8. Dunn KM, Croft PR: Classification of low back pain in primary care: Using bothersomeness to identify the most severe cases. Spine 2005, 30(16):1887-1892.
    • 9. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G: Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardised use. Spine 1998, 23:2003-13.
    • 10. UK BEAM Trial Team: United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 2004, 329:1377-80.
    • 11. Goldberg D, Williams P: The user's guide to the general health questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 2001.
    • 12. EuroQol Website [http://www.euroqol.org/web]
    • 13. MRC General Practice Research Framework Website [http:/ /mrc-gprf.ac.uk]
    • 14. Deyo R, Walsh NE, Schoenfeld LS, Ramamurthy S: Studies of the Modified Somatic Perceptions Questionnaire (MSPQ) in patients with back pain. Psychometric and predictive properties. Spine 1989, 14(5):507-510.
    • 15. Carnes D: Picturing persistent pain - a study on chronic pain in the community. University of London; 2005 in press.
    • 16. Anastasi A: Psychological testing. New York: Collier MacMillan; 1988.
    • 17. Murphy KR: Psychological testing: principles and applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1991.
    • 18. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV: High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1990, 43(6):543-549.
    • 19. International Association for the Study of Pain: International Association for the Study of Pain: Classification of chronic pain. Pain 1986:S1-S226.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.