The Keller Index of Nausea (KIN) - FOD Volksgezondheid ...

Author
(year)
Spadoni, G. F., Stratford, P.
W., Solomon, P. E., & Wishart,
L. R.
(2004)
Paice, J. A. & Cohen, F. L.
(1997)
Carey, S. J., Turpin, C., Smith,
J., Whatley, J., & Haddox, D.
(1997)
Setting Sample
(n)
20 outpatient
physical therapy
clinics. The clinics
were located in the
Canadian
Provinces of
Alberta, Ontario,
Quebec and the
State of Georgia,
USA.
A large tertiary care
hospital.
Inpatient units of
the Crawford Long
Hospital, Atlanta.
220 patients with musculoskeletal
problems receiving physical therapy.
213 patients (97%) were available for
retest; and 183 patients (83%)
provided data at follow-up.
(n = 220)
A convenience sample of 50 adult
oncological patients with pain.
(n = 50)
The admitted diagnosis for 39.5% of
the sample was acute pain, 40.3 with
chronic pain and 20.2 with no pain.
(n = 267)
Design Reliability Validity
Comparative study:
To determine whether the P4 was
more adept at assessing pain
change than 2 versions of a singleitem
NRS. One version inquired
about pain intensity over the past
24 hours and the second version
asked about pain intensity over the
past 2 days. NRSs and the P4 were
administered on 3 occasions - initial
visit, within 72 hours of baseline,
and 12 days following baseline
assessment.
Comparative study: the NRS was
compared with VAS and Simple
Descriptor Scale (SDS).
Comparative study: the VAS was
compared with FRS and NRS.
S CrV
Reliability: Stability (S), Internal consistency (IC), Equivalence (E)
Validity: Face validity (FV), Content validity (CtV), Criterion validity (CrV), Construct validity (CsV)
Sensitivity (Sen), Specificity (Sp), Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Receiver Operating Curve (ROC), Likelihood
Ratio (LR), Odds Ratio (OR)
IC
CrV
243