IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v9y2000i2p124-143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity and Reliability of a Practice-Based Infant Pain Assessment Instrument

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara F. Fuller
  • Madalynn Neu

    (University of Colorado School of Nursing)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of an infant pain assessment instrument. This instrument is an algorithm derived from a model of infant pain assessment that emerged from interviews with pediatric nurses and includes methods for evaluating clinical data that suggest the likelihood of pain. Unlike other instruments, this instrument is not restricted to use in clinical situations where the likelihood of pain is evident. This instrument determines the three levels of pain that guide subsequent nursing interventions: no pain, mild pain (discomfort), and severe pain. Content validity was determined by obtaining and incorporating feedback from a focus group of practicing pediatric nurses on various developmental stages of the instrument. Criterion-like validity was excellent: Mean Pearson correlations between the pain ratings of 18 videotaped infants by 24 nursing students using the instrument with ratings performed by a panel of 5 expert nurses not using any instrument was 0.96. Test-retest reliability, as measured by Pearson correlations between pain ratings 3 months apart, was also excellent (r = 0.91) .

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara F. Fuller & Madalynn Neu, 2000. "Validity and Reliability of a Practice-Based Infant Pain Assessment Instrument," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 9(2), pages 124-143, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:9:y:2000:i:2:p:124-143
    DOI: 10.1177/105477380000900203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/105477380000900203
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/105477380000900203?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:9:y:2000:i:2:p:124-143. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.