Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS)

Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS) 2018-07-24T16:02:27-04:00

Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS)

Description: A measure of pain intensity and interference with normal daily activities.

Format: 7 items

Scoring: Scores for 6 of the items range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as it could be). The one remaining item requires filling in the number of days that pain has kept respondents from their typical activities.

Scores classify respondents into one of 4 levels of pain intensity and activity interference:

  1. Low disability and low pain intensity
  2. Low disability and high pain intensity
  3. High disability and moderate limitation of activities
  4. High disability and severe limitation of activities

Pain intensity is calculated by averaging ratings of current pain, worst pain in the last 3 months, and average pain in the last 3 months, then multiplying by 10.

Pain-related disability scores were calculated by averaging ratings of pain interference with daily, social, and work/housework activities in the past 3 months, then multiplying by 10.

Administration and Burden: Interviewer-administered; Self-administered.

Psychometrics: The CPGS scores of pain intensity and disability show excellent reliability with Cronbach’s α at 0.95 and 0.94, respectively [1].

Languages: English.

QoL Concept: The CPGS is a Health-Related QoL measure of pain impact on activities, which corresponds to Box C (achievements; activities of daily living) and E (subjective evaluations and reactions) of Dijker’s Model.

Permissions/Where to Obtain: Public Domain; The CPGS can be obtained in the article:

Von Korff M, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, Dworkin SF. Grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain 1992;50;133-49.

**CLICK ON THE LISTED SECONDARY HEALTH CONDITIONS ON THE RIGHT TO READ HOW THE CPGS HAS BEEN USED WITH A PARTICULAR CONDITION**

 

References:

  1. Raichle KA, Osborne TL, Jensen MP, Cardenas DD. The reliability and validity of pain interference measures in persons with spinal cord injury. J Pain 2006;7:179-86.