Examiner expectancy effects in the measurement of pressure pain thresholds

Richard Ohrbach, Heidi Crow, Angela Kamer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The ascending Method of Limits, used for the determination of pressure pain thresholds (PPT), is not a psychophysically robust method. The present study sought to determine if the examiner's expectancy, based on whether the measurement site was clinically 'painful' or 'non-painful', would bias the obtained PPT values. Twenty-eight patients with facial or temporal area pain served as subjects, and in each subject, a pain site and a control site were identified and marked. According to a randomization schedule, the pain and control sites were correctly marked in half of the subjects and were mis-labeled in the other half, thereby controlling the examiner's knowledge of a site and thus the examiner's expectancy of what the PPT should be. Two examiners, shown to be reliable with each other in both pre-clinical and post-clinical reliability studies, were blind to the true purpose of the study and to the marking procedures. Each examiner made one PPT measurement at each marked site in a counterbalanced measurement order. Manipulating the examiner's prior knowledge of the measurement site's characteristics signifcantly lowered the obtained PPT values for control sites but did not significantly alter the PPT at the clinically painful sites. Nevertheless, the pain sites still had significantly lower PPTs than did control sites. We conclude that: (i) PPTs at pain sites are robust to a major source of measurement bias associated with the ascending Method of Limits; (ii) measurement order and knowledge of measurement site characteristics can influence obtained PPT; and (iii) the common protocol in which the examiner monitors the amount of pressure during PPT measurement in order to control the force application rate may serve as a mechanism that can bias the obtained values.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)163-170
Number of pages8
JournalPain
Volume74
Issue number2-3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1998

Fingerprint

Pain Threshold
Pressure
Pain
Pain Measurement
Random Allocation
Appointments and Schedules

Keywords

  • Expectancy
  • Muscle pain
  • Pressure pain threshold

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Neurology
  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Pharmacology
  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

Examiner expectancy effects in the measurement of pressure pain thresholds. / Ohrbach, Richard; Crow, Heidi; Kamer, Angela.

In: Pain, Vol. 74, No. 2-3, 01.1998, p. 163-170.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ohrbach, Richard ; Crow, Heidi ; Kamer, Angela. / Examiner expectancy effects in the measurement of pressure pain thresholds. In: Pain. 1998 ; Vol. 74, No. 2-3. pp. 163-170.
@article{8a32e55579d44e568e5b17acace02eba,
title = "Examiner expectancy effects in the measurement of pressure pain thresholds",
abstract = "The ascending Method of Limits, used for the determination of pressure pain thresholds (PPT), is not a psychophysically robust method. The present study sought to determine if the examiner's expectancy, based on whether the measurement site was clinically 'painful' or 'non-painful', would bias the obtained PPT values. Twenty-eight patients with facial or temporal area pain served as subjects, and in each subject, a pain site and a control site were identified and marked. According to a randomization schedule, the pain and control sites were correctly marked in half of the subjects and were mis-labeled in the other half, thereby controlling the examiner's knowledge of a site and thus the examiner's expectancy of what the PPT should be. Two examiners, shown to be reliable with each other in both pre-clinical and post-clinical reliability studies, were blind to the true purpose of the study and to the marking procedures. Each examiner made one PPT measurement at each marked site in a counterbalanced measurement order. Manipulating the examiner's prior knowledge of the measurement site's characteristics signifcantly lowered the obtained PPT values for control sites but did not significantly alter the PPT at the clinically painful sites. Nevertheless, the pain sites still had significantly lower PPTs than did control sites. We conclude that: (i) PPTs at pain sites are robust to a major source of measurement bias associated with the ascending Method of Limits; (ii) measurement order and knowledge of measurement site characteristics can influence obtained PPT; and (iii) the common protocol in which the examiner monitors the amount of pressure during PPT measurement in order to control the force application rate may serve as a mechanism that can bias the obtained values.",
keywords = "Expectancy, Muscle pain, Pressure pain threshold",
author = "Richard Ohrbach and Heidi Crow and Angela Kamer",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0304-3959(97)00174-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "74",
pages = "163--170",
journal = "Pain",
issn = "0304-3959",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2-3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Examiner expectancy effects in the measurement of pressure pain thresholds

AU - Ohrbach, Richard

AU - Crow, Heidi

AU - Kamer, Angela

PY - 1998/1

Y1 - 1998/1

N2 - The ascending Method of Limits, used for the determination of pressure pain thresholds (PPT), is not a psychophysically robust method. The present study sought to determine if the examiner's expectancy, based on whether the measurement site was clinically 'painful' or 'non-painful', would bias the obtained PPT values. Twenty-eight patients with facial or temporal area pain served as subjects, and in each subject, a pain site and a control site were identified and marked. According to a randomization schedule, the pain and control sites were correctly marked in half of the subjects and were mis-labeled in the other half, thereby controlling the examiner's knowledge of a site and thus the examiner's expectancy of what the PPT should be. Two examiners, shown to be reliable with each other in both pre-clinical and post-clinical reliability studies, were blind to the true purpose of the study and to the marking procedures. Each examiner made one PPT measurement at each marked site in a counterbalanced measurement order. Manipulating the examiner's prior knowledge of the measurement site's characteristics signifcantly lowered the obtained PPT values for control sites but did not significantly alter the PPT at the clinically painful sites. Nevertheless, the pain sites still had significantly lower PPTs than did control sites. We conclude that: (i) PPTs at pain sites are robust to a major source of measurement bias associated with the ascending Method of Limits; (ii) measurement order and knowledge of measurement site characteristics can influence obtained PPT; and (iii) the common protocol in which the examiner monitors the amount of pressure during PPT measurement in order to control the force application rate may serve as a mechanism that can bias the obtained values.

AB - The ascending Method of Limits, used for the determination of pressure pain thresholds (PPT), is not a psychophysically robust method. The present study sought to determine if the examiner's expectancy, based on whether the measurement site was clinically 'painful' or 'non-painful', would bias the obtained PPT values. Twenty-eight patients with facial or temporal area pain served as subjects, and in each subject, a pain site and a control site were identified and marked. According to a randomization schedule, the pain and control sites were correctly marked in half of the subjects and were mis-labeled in the other half, thereby controlling the examiner's knowledge of a site and thus the examiner's expectancy of what the PPT should be. Two examiners, shown to be reliable with each other in both pre-clinical and post-clinical reliability studies, were blind to the true purpose of the study and to the marking procedures. Each examiner made one PPT measurement at each marked site in a counterbalanced measurement order. Manipulating the examiner's prior knowledge of the measurement site's characteristics signifcantly lowered the obtained PPT values for control sites but did not significantly alter the PPT at the clinically painful sites. Nevertheless, the pain sites still had significantly lower PPTs than did control sites. We conclude that: (i) PPTs at pain sites are robust to a major source of measurement bias associated with the ascending Method of Limits; (ii) measurement order and knowledge of measurement site characteristics can influence obtained PPT; and (iii) the common protocol in which the examiner monitors the amount of pressure during PPT measurement in order to control the force application rate may serve as a mechanism that can bias the obtained values.

KW - Expectancy

KW - Muscle pain

KW - Pressure pain threshold

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031939375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031939375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0304-3959(97)00174-7

DO - 10.1016/S0304-3959(97)00174-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 9520230

AN - SCOPUS:0031939375

VL - 74

SP - 163

EP - 170

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

SN - 0304-3959

IS - 2-3

ER -