The psychometric strength & patient centeredness of the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale

Abstract: To address the erroneous claims made by Costantino and colleagues regarding the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) as an inadequate patient-reported outcome measure for pain assessment in the military population. The impetus for designing the DVPRS was based on numerous interviews with clinicians and researchers, and the scale was developed by and with service members and their health providers before being thoroughly tested in military care settings. Service members were actively involved in the development of the DVPRS, and the psychometric properties were rigorously evaluated in several cohorts of service members. Purposive sampling was used to obtain representative samples of focus group informants including service members, Veterans, and clinicians during the scale’s development. The DVPRS has acceptable internal consistency reliability, content validity, convergent validity, and construct validity. The claims made by Costantino and colleagues regarding the inadequacy of the DVPRS lack rigor and overlook previous research engaging service members in focus groups and testing to inform the instrument’s design. The widespread utilization of the DVPRS in research and clinical practice across military, Veteran, and civilian care settings indicates the psychometric strength and relevance to patients is recognized by clinicians and researchers alike. While the evolution of outcomes assessment instruments is expected, the DVPRS remains a valuable tool for pain assessment in the military population.

Read the full article
Report a problem with this article

Related articles

  • More for Researchers

    Risk of incident mild cognitive impairment and dementia soon after leaving incarceration among a US Veteran population

    Abstract: Objectives: Increasing numbers of older adults are reentering community following incarceration (i.e., reentry), yet risk of incident neurodegenerative disorders associated with reentry is unknown. Our objective was to determine association between reentry status (reentry vs never-incarcerated) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or dementia. Methods: This nationwide, longitudinal cohort study used linked Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Veterans Health Administration data. Participants were aged 65 years or older who experienced reentry between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 2018, with no preincarceration MCI/dementia, compared with age-matched/sex-matched never-incarcerated veterans. MCI/dementia was defined by diagnostic codes. Fine-Gray proportional hazards models were used to examine association. Results: This study included 35,520 veterans, mean age of 70 years, and approximately 1% women. The reentry group (N = 5,920) had higher incidence of MCI/dementia compared with the never-incarcerated group (N = 29,600; 10.2% vs 7.2%; fully adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12; 95% CI 1.00-1.25). On further investigation, reentry was associated with increased risk of dementia with or without prior MCI diagnosis (aHR 1.21; 95% CI 1.06-1.39) but not MCI only. Discussion: Transition from incarceration to community increased risk of neurocognitive diagnosis. Findings indicate health/social services to identify and address significant cognitive deficits on late-life reentry. Limitations include generalizability to nonveterans.