Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2025
Development of a Virtual Reality Assessment of Everyday Living Skills
Published on: April 23, 2014
Validity and reliability of the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition 15 (PAIC15) observation scale in persons with
N J de Vries1,2, H J A Smaling3,4, J T van der Steen3,5
1Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, Hippocratespad 21, Zone V0-P, Leiden, 2300 RC, the Netherlands. n.j.de_vries@lumc.nl.
Background:
The use of self-report pain scales in persons with aphasia can be challenging due to communication and cognitive problems, while for assessing pain self-report pain is considered the gold standard (Harrison RA, Field TS. Post stroke pain: identification, assessment, and therapy. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;39(3-4):190-201.). An observational scale may be used as an alternative. This study examines the validity and reliability of the observational Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC15) scale in persons with aphasia.
Methods:
Persons with aphasia were observed during rest and transfer by two observers using the PAIC15. The PAIC15 comprises 15 items covering the three domains of facial expressions, body movements, and vocalizations. When able, the participant completed four self-report pain scales after each observation. The observations were repeated within one week. For criterion validity, correlations between the PAIC15 and self-report pain scales were calculated and for construct validity, three hypotheses were tested. Reliability was determined by assessing internal consistency, and intra- and interobserver agreement.
Results:
PAIC15 observations were obtained for 71 persons (mean age 75.5 years) with aphasia. Fair positive correlations (rest: 0.35-0.50; transfer: 0.38-0.43) were reported between PAIC15 and almost all self-report pain scales. Results show that significantly more pain was observed in persons with aphasia during transfer than during rest. No differences were found for observed pain between persons with aphasia who use pain medication and those without, or persons who have joint diseases compared to those without. Results showed acceptable internal consistency. Intra- and interobserver agreement was high for most PAIC15 items, particularly for the domains body movements and vocalizations during rest and transfer.
Conclusions:
Recognition of pain in persons aphasia using the PAIC15 showed mixed yet promising results.
