4.4 Article

Validation of the University of California San Francisco Oral Cancer Pain Questionnaire

Journal

JOURNAL OF PAIN
Volume 8, Issue 12, Pages 950-953

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.06.012

Keywords

oral cancer; cancer pain; quality of life; questionnaire; validation

Funding

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE 14609, K12 DE014609-03, K12 DE014609] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to validate the published University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Oral Cancer Pain Questionnaire. To test for validity of the questionnaire, 16 patients with oral cancer completed the 8-item questionnaire immediately before and after treatment (surgical resection) of their oral cancer. For all 8 questions, the difference between mean preoperative and mean postoperative responses were statistically significant (P <.05), confirming the validity of the questionnaire to measure oral cancer pain. Internal consistency of the questionnaire was evaluated by using Cronbach's alpha, which provides an estimate of reliability based on all correlations between the items (questions) of the instrument (questionnaire). In the oral cancer pain questionnaire, questions 1, 3, and 5 evaluate the intensity, sharpness, and throbbing nature of pain when the patient is not engaged in oral function (talking, eating, and drinking). Questions 2, 4, and 6 measure the intensity, sharpness, and throbbing nature of pain during oral function. Cronbach's alpha for questions 1, 3, and 5 is 0.87 and Cronbach's alpha for questions 2, 4, and 6 is 0.94; values greater than 0.7 indicate reliability. In this study, we have validated the UCSF Oral Cancer Pain Questionnaire as an effective tool in quantifying pain from oral cancer. Perspective: The study validates an oral cancer pain questionnaire. The questionnaire can be used to reliably measure pain levels before and after surgical resection in patients with oral cancer. (c) 2007 by the American Pain Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available