Chronic Pain Grade Scale

Last Updated

July 22, 2020

Expertise, Instruction and Mentorship

Center for Smart Use of Technologies to Assess Real World Outcomes (C-STAR)

Learn more

Upcoming Stroke Course

May 9–10
Live and Online

Offered by Academy, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab

Purpose

The Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), also referred to as the Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire, is a 7-item objective measure designed to evaluate pain intensity and pain-related disability in adults with chronic pain conditions.

Acronym CPGS, CPG

Area of Assessment

Pain
Life Participation
Quality of Life
General Health

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$0.00

Cost Description

Cost of Materials

CDE Status

Not a CDE (7/24/2020)

Chronic Pain

7-item self-report questionnaire, 0-10 Likert scale
3 subscales are scored to describe 2 dimensions of chronic pain over the past 3-6 months: Pain intensity (characteristic pain intensity) and pain-related disability (disability score; disability points score)
Characteristic pain intensity score and disability score range from 0-100; Disability score and disability days are used to calculate disability points score, which ranges from 0-3
Scores are used to classify chronic pain severity on a 0-IV scale: Grade 0 (no pain), Grade I (low disability-low intensity), Grade II (low disability-high intensity), grade III (high disability-moderately limiting) and grade IV (high disability-severely limiting)

Number of Items

Paper survey
Writing utensil

2-10 minutes

Average completion time is 3-4 minutes.

Required Training

No Training

Required Training Description

Should be administered by a trained health care professional.

Adult

18 - 64

years

Older Adult

65 - 100

years

Instrument Reviewers

Jennifer Burns; Ashley Lea, Sophie Quigg, Cayla Faverio, Colton Phelps, Michael Losensky (Duke Doctor of Physical Therapy Students); Derek Clewley, PT, DPT, PhD (faculty)

Body Part

Head
Back
Neck
Upper Extremity
Lower Extremity

ICF Domain

Participation
Activity
Body Function
Body Structure

Measurement Domain

Participation & Activities
General Health

Considerations

Cognitive status, Level of understanding

Normative Data

Chronic Pain: (Von Korff, 1992; n = 2389 [n = 1213 back pain, n = 779 headache, n = 397 temporomandibular disorder {TMD}]; Age Range = 18-75 years)

Pain Grade	Back pain (n, %)	Headache (n, %)	TMD pain (n, %)
Grade I	414, 34.9%	229, 29.7%	159, 40.7%
Grade II	330, 27.9%	309, 40.1%	170, 43.5%
Grade III	237, 20%	156, 20.2%	41, 10.5%
Grade IV	204, 17.2%	77, 10%	21, 5.4%
Missing	28	8	6

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: (Salaffi et al. 2006; n = 576; Mean Age (SD) = 61.5 (13.5) years; Italian sample; Italian version of CPG)

Mean (SD) scores on the CPG items:
- Mean current pain intensity = 4.90 (2.18)
- Mean average pain intensity in the past 6 months = 5.21 (1.93)
- Worst pain intensity in the past 6 months = 6.40 (2.14)
- Mean level of interference of musculoskeletal pain with daily activities = 3.97 (2.56)
- Mean level of interference of musculoskeletal pain with recreational, social, and family activities = 3.56 (2.70)
- Mean level of interference of musculoskeletal pain with work/housework = 3.77 (2.76)

Chronic Pain in Emergency Department: (Bernard, 2004; n = 476, Mean Age = 43.4 (16.3) years; Emergency Department patients reporting chronic pain)

Grade 0 (null); Grade I (null); Grade II (n = 19, 9.8%); Grade III (n = 62, 32.1%); Grade IV (n = 69, 35.8%)

Chronic Upper Extremity Pain: (Roy, 2012; n = 448, Mean Age = 45 (10) years; Mean symptom duration = 22 (55) months; Work-related upper-extremity injury resulting in disability)

At baseline (n=557): Grade 0 (null), Grade I (n=28, 5%), Grade II (n=39, 7%), Grade II (n=101, 18%), Grade IV (n=389, 70%)
At follow-up visit (+6 months, n=448): Grade 0 (n=2, 0.4%), Grade I (n=55, 11%), Grade II (n=40, 8%), Grade III (n=61, 12%), Grade IV (n=340, 68%)

Test/Retest Reliability

Chronic Low Back Pain: (Dunn, 2003; n = 259; Mean Age = 45 (8.1) years; UK sample)

Moderate test-retest reliability after 2-weeks (weighted kappa = 0.81 for chronological questionnaire and = 0.60 for traditional questionnaire)

Internal Consistency

Chronic Back Pain: (Von Korff, 1992)

Adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74)

Chronic Pain: (Smith, 1997; n = 293; Scottish sample)

Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.91)
High item-total correlations:
- Question #1: 0.7085
- Question #2: 0.6885
- Question #3: 0.7673
- Question #4: 0.6951
- Question #5: 0.8285
- Question #6: 0.8291
- Question #7: 0.8061

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: (Salaffi, 2006; n = 576; Mean Age (SD) = 61.5 (13.5) years; Italian sample, Italian version of CPGS)

Good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89 for Disability Score; = 0.81 for characteristic pain intensity)
Significant correlation between the pain and disability dimensions of CPG (Spearman’s rho = 0.48)
Moderate to high item-total correlations
- Highest item-total correlation for item 7 (r=0.77)
- Lowest item-total correlation for
- item 1 (r=0.50)

Chronic Hip Pain: (Papaioannou, 2018; n = 87; Mean Age = 67 (9.34) years; Greek sample, Greek translation [CPGQ-Gr])

Excellent internal consistency for total scale, disability scale, and chronic pain intensity (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90, 0.95, 0.83 respectively) (ICC = 0.84, 0.92, 0.91 respectively)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Chronic Upper Extremity: (Roy, 2012)

No significant predictive validity for CPG Grades on the probability of work productivity loss, work instability, or outcomes of upper-extremity disability after 6 months.

Construct Validity

Chronic Pain: (Smith, 1997)

“All seven questions included in this analysis had a factor loading greater than 0.75…therefore all contributed substantially to the variance explained by this factor. Since the CPG was designed to measure a single concept, i.e., pain, it appeared reasonable that only one factor represented most of the variance between patients.”
Factor analysis values:
- Question #1: 0.7808
- Question #2: 0.7677
- Question #3: 0.8302
- Question #4: 0.7691
- Question #5: 0.8866
- Question #6: 0.8843
- Question #7: 0.8652
Adequate convergent validity between the Pain dimension of the SF-36 and the CPGS Pain Intensity Score (Spearman’s correlation coefficient = -0.71); Disability points score ( = -0.71) and Chronic Pain Grade (= -0.84)
Highly significant correlation between the CPGS and all eight dimensions of the SF-36 (Spearman’s correlation coefficients range from -0.28 to -0.84, p<0.001)

Chronic Pain: (Penny, 1999; n = 6940 [n = 3605 general population, n = 3335 repeat prescription]; UK sample)

Significant convergent validity between SF-36 and CPGS such that higher CPG correlates with lower mean scores for all eight SF-36 subscales (p<0.001 for eight Kruskal-Wallis Tests)
Significant convergent validity between Glasgow Pain Questionnaire (GPQ) and CPGS such that higher CPG correlates with higher mean scores for all five GPQ dimensions (p<0.001 for five Kruskal-Wallis Tests)

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: (Salaffi, 2006)

Convergent validity

Significant convergent validity between CPGS and all SF-36 subscales measuring pain and physical health:
- Characteristic Pain Intensity subscale and SF-36 Bodily Pain subscale (Spearman’s rho = -0.55, p<0.0001)
- Disability Score subscale and SF-36 Physical Component Summary Scale Score (PCS) dimension (= -0.62, p<0.0001)
Significant convergent validity between CPGS Grade and presence of comorbid conditions (Chi squared = 36.37)
Significant convergent validity between CPGS Grade and older age (Chi squared = 64.34)

Discriminant validity

Significant discriminant validity between CPGS and SF-36 subscales measuring mental health:
- CPGS Characteristic Pain Intensity, CPGS Disability Score and SF-36 Mental Health subscale (= -0.28, -0.39 respectively)

Chronic Upper Extremity Pain: (Roy, 2012)

Significant discriminant validity of CPGS on different levels of disability and work status after 6 months as indicated by significantly poorer scores (P<0.008) on the QuickDASH, WLQ-25, and RA-WIS for higher Grades (IV, III) versus lower Grades (I, II)

Responsiveness

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: (Elliott, 2000; n = 450; Scottish sample)

Significant correlations between change in CPG and change in multiple SF-36 subscales: Physical functioning (-0.29), Social Functioning (-0.32), Role Physical (-0.34), Bodily Pain (-0.42), General Health (-0.28).

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: (Hawker, 2011)

Moderate responsiveness after 12 months of treatment in Pain Intensity and Disability subscales (standardized effect size = 0.41, 0.43 respectively)

Bibliography

Bernard, AM, Wright, SW. Chronic Pain in the ED. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2004; 22(6): 444-7.

Dunn KM, Jordan K, Croft PR. Does questionnaire structure influence response in postal surveys? J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 10-6.

Elliot AM, Smith BH, Smith WC, Chambers WA. Changes in chronic pain severity over time: the Chronic Pain Grade as a valid measure. Pain, 2000; 88: 303-8.

Hawker, GA, Mian, S, Kendzerska, T, French, M. (2011). Measures of adult pain: Visual analog scale for pain (vas pain), numeric rating scale for pain (nrs pain), mcgill pain questionnaire (mpq), short-form mcgill pain questionnaire (sf-mpq), chronic pain grade scale (cpgs), short form-36 bodily pain scale (sf-36 bps), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (icoap). Arthritis Care & Research, 2011; 63(S11): 240-252.

Papaioannou, M, Diakomi, M, Georgoudis, G, Argyra, E, Vadalouca, A, Siafaka, I. The Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness in Greek chronic hip pain sufferers. Hippokratia, 2018; 22(1): 37-42.

Penny KI, Purves AM, Smith BH, Chambers WA, Smith WC. Relationship between the chronic pain grade and measure of physical, social and psychological well-being. Pain, 1999; 79: 275-9.

Roy, JS, MacDermid, JC, Tang, K, Beaton, DE. Construct and Predictive Validity of the Chronic Pain Grade in Workers with Chronic Work-related Upper-extremity Disorders. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 2013; 29(10): 891-897.

Salaffi F, Stancati A, Grassi W. Reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Clin Rheumatol. 2006; 25(5): 619-31.

Smith BH, Penny KI, Purves AM, et al. The Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire: validation and reliability in postal research. Pain, 1997; 71(2):141-7.

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