Brief Pain Inventory

Abstract

The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is one of the most widely utilized, extensively validated, and psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed to evaluate the multidimensional experience of pain. Developed originally by Dr. Charles S. Cleeland and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and further refined at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, the BPI captures both the intensity of pain (sensory dimension) and the degree to which pain impairs daily functioning (reactive or interference dimension). The instrument exists in two primary formats: the Brief Pain Inventory Long Form (consisting of comprehensive exploratory items including pain mapping, pain etiology, qualitative descriptors, and relief dynamics) and the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (a rapid 9-to-11 item operationalized instrument commonly deployed in clinical trials and routine oncologic and non-oncologic care). Responses to the core intensity and functional interference items are calibrated on 11-point numerical rating scales (NRS) ranging from 0 (“No Pain” or “Does not interfere”) to 10 (“Pain as bad as you can imagine” or “Completely interferes”). Across four decades of empirical investigation spanning metastatic cancer, osteoarthritis, peripheral neuropathy, fibromyalgia, low back pain, and post-surgical populations, the BPI has demonstrated exceptional internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha consistently ranging from .80 to .93), remarkable test-retest reliability ($r > .80$), and unyielding structural validity confirmed via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. By translating complex subjective nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic distress into standardized metric profiles, the BPI serves as an indispensable clinical and epidemiological instrument aligned with the core recommendations of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT).

Keywords

Brief Pain Inventory, BPI, Pain Measurement, Pain Severity, Pain Interference, Oncology, Chronic Pain, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Authors

The Brief Pain Inventory was conceptualized, constructed, and empirically validated by Charles S. Cleeland, Ph.D., alongside his early collaborators, notably Ronald L. Daut, Ph.D., and Richard C. Flanery, Ph.D.

• Charles S. Cleeland, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus and former Chair of the Department of Symptom Research at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, Texas, USA); previously Director of the Pain Research Group at the University of Wisconsin Medical School (Madison, Wisconsin, USA). Dr. Cleeland is internationally recognized as a pioneer in cancer symptom epidemiology, palliative medicine, and behavioral oncology.
• Ronald L. Daut, Ph.D.: Clinical psychologist and psychometric researcher affiliated with the Pain Research Group, University of Wisconsin Medical School, whose initial doctoral and postdoctoral research centered on the measurement of cancer-related physical distress.
• Collaborating Institutional Entity: The Pain Research Group, World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Palliative Care, and the Department of Symptom Research, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

Purpose

Pain is an inherently subjective, complex biobehavioral phenomenon characterized by neurophysiological sensations, affective responses, cognitive appraisals, and behavioral disruption. Historically, clinical medicine relied almost exclusively on single-item unidimensional scales, such as visual analogue scales (VAS) or verbal rating scales, which recorded pain intensity at a single isolated moment. While computationally parsimonious, unidimensional instruments fail to capture the pervasive functional, psychological, and physiological consequences of persistent pain. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was designed to overcome these fundamental psychometric limitations by providing a rapid, easily interpretable, yet multidimensional assessment battery that evaluates:

• The sensory magnitude of pain across diverse temporal windows (worst, least, average, and current pain intensity).
• The spatial distribution and biological focus of pain via systematic bodily diagrammatic shade mapping.
• The perceived etiology of pain symptoms (attributable to primary disease, systemic therapeutic interventions, or comorbid non-malignant conditions).
• The objective and subjective pharmacotherapeutic response, operationalized as percentage relief achieved via therapeutic interventions.
• The degree of functional intrusion across distinct domains of living, specifically general physical activity, mood state, walking or ambulation, vocational/household work, interpersonal relations, sleep quality, and the broader enjoyment of life.

In clinical oncology, the primary rationale of the BPI was to establish an evidence-based clinical baseline to address the widespread, documented undertreatment of cancer pain documented globally in the late 20th century. By systematically measuring both severity and functional interference, clinicians could titrate opioid analgesics and adjuvant therapies in accordance with the World Health Organization’s Pain Relief Ladder. Beyond oncology, the BPI was adopted across rheumatology, orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurology, and primary care settings. It serves as an optimal endpoint measure in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation, surgical interventions, and cognitive-behavioral therapies, meeting the rigorous evidentiary standards established by regulatory bodies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for label-claim health-related quality of life (HRQoL) endpoints.

Psychological Construct

The Brief Pain Inventory is anchored in the premise that pain must be operationalized as a dual-construct phenomenon comprising two primary interrelated yet structurally dissociable latent dimensions: Pain Severity and Pain Interference.

1. The Pain Severity Dimension (Sensory-Discriminative Construct)

Pain severity reflects the sensory-discriminative dimension of pain processing, biologically mediated by ascending spinothalamic pathways projecting to the primary and secondary somatosensory cortices and thalamic nuclei. Within the BPI framework, pain severity is operationalized not as a fixed static metric, but as an oscillating temporal dynamic. Chronic and acute pain states demonstrate pronounced diurnal variation, exertion-dependent flares, and medication-dependent peak-and-trough kinetics. To capture this complexity without imposing prohibitive respondent burden, the BPI samples four critical operational parameters:

• Worst Pain: Quantifies the maximum sensory threshold reached within the designated observation window (typically the past week or the past 24 hours). This metric is critical for identifying breakthrough pain, inadequate analgesic dosing, or mechanical instability.
• Least Pain: Represents the nadir of the sensory experience, providing a proxy measure of baseline non-evoked pain or the optimal ceiling of therapeutic efficacy.
• Average Pain: Requires cognitive integration across the temporal window to yield a representative steady-state value of the patient’s perceived baseline nociceptive load.
• Pain Right Now: Provides a real-time, ecological point-prevalence measurement unaffected by retrospective recall bias.

2. The Pain Interference Dimension (Reactive-Affective-Functional Construct)

Pain interference quantifies the functional and affective sequelae triggered by the conscious awareness of pain. This dimension maps onto the medial pain system, involving the anterior cingulate cortex, insular cortex, and limbic structures governing motivational, emotional, and motoric responses. Chronic pain fundamentally constrains human behavior, disrupting homeostatic functioning and psychosocial roles. The BPI operationalizes pain interference across seven distinct spheres of human activity:

• General Activity: Disruption of generalized somatic physical movements and routine daily kinetic tasks.
• Mood: The immediate affective spillover of pain, precipitating irritability, demoralization, dysphoria, or anxiety.
• Walking Ability: Basic ambulation and lower-extremity motor execution, serving as a critical index of basic physical mobility.
• Normal Work: Impairment in role functioning, encompassing both occupational employment and instrumental activities of daily living (such as housework, meal preparation, and childcare).
• Relations with Other People: Socio-environmental consequences, including social withdrawal, communicative strain, and interpersonal friction caused by chronic discomfort and distress.
• Sleep: Disruption of sleep architecture, latency, and maintenance, reflecting the bi-directional cycle wherein nocturnal pain fragments sleep and poor sleep lowers pain thresholds.
• Enjoyment of Life: Hedonic tone and perceived life quality, quantifying the extent to which pain precipitates anhedonia and undermines subjective well-being.

3. Ancillary Clinical and Qualitative Dimensions

In its comprehensive long-form implementation, the BPI captures auxiliary psychological and behavioral constructs, including the patient’s causal attributions of their condition (illness perceptions), qualitative sensory descriptions (aching, burning, stabbing, radiating), and self-perceived therapeutic efficacy (percentage pain relief). These elements provide vital context for understanding how the respondent cognitively frames their pain experience.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Brief Pain Inventory is situated at the intersection of Melzack and Wall’s Gate Control Theory of Pain, the broader Neuromatrix Model of Pain, and the Biopsychosocial Model of chronic illness championed by George Engel and Gordon Waddell.

The Gate Control Theory and Neuromatrix Foundations

Prior to the formulation of the Gate Control Theory in 1965 by Ronald Melzack and Patrick Wall, classical specificity theories viewed pain strictly as a hardwired, linear transmission from peripheral nociceptors to a pain center in the brain. Melzack and Wall revolutionized sensory physiology by establishing that neural mechanisms in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord act as a dynamic gate, modulating nerve impulses from peripheral fibers before they reach the brain. Building on this, Melzack proposed that the central experience of pain is produced by a wide neural network—the body-self neuromatrix—incorporating sensory, affective, and cognitive inputs.

Dr. Charles Cleeland recognized the profound psychometric implications of Melzack’s work. If pain is inherently multidimensional, a psychometric tool cannot rely solely on measuring the sensory volume of the stimulus. It must simultaneously assess the subjective sensory intensity (governed by the sensory-discriminative neural processing stream) and the secondary disruptive impact on affective-behavioral pathways (governed by the motivational-affective neural stream). The BPI was explicitly constructed to align with this dichotomy: the four pain severity items capture sensory output, whereas the seven interference items measure reactive affective and motor outputs.

The Biopsychosocial Framework

The BPI operationalizes the core postulates of the Biopsychosocial model, which asserts that biological pathology (nociception) does not map directly onto functional disability or illness behavior in a linear manner. Two patients with identical metastatic bone lesions on radiologic imaging may present with identical 0–10 sensory pain ratings, yet experience radically disparate levels of pain interference due to differences in cognitive appraisal, catastrophic thinking, coping mechanisms, social support, and neurobiological vulnerabilities. By decoupling severity from interference while housing them within a unified diagnostic battery, the BPI allows clinicians and researchers to observe the divergence between somatic input and functional behavioral adaptation.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Brief Pain Inventory has been evaluated across hundreds of empirical investigations involving thousands of participants worldwide. Its validity profile encompasses robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive evidence.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity has been repeatedly substantiated across diverse clinical populations, including cancer patients, individuals with HIV/AIDS, rheumatologic cohorts, and those with chronic non-malignant low back pain. Large-scale structural equation modeling has confirmed that the BPI items map onto the hypothesized latent dimensions of Pain Severity and Pain Interference without structural collapse. Studies assessing cross-cultural equivalence across North American, European, East Asian, and Latin American cohorts have demonstrated invariant factor structures, confirming that the distinction between pain intensity and pain interference transcends linguistic and geographical boundaries.

Convergent Validity

The convergent validity of the BPI is evidenced by its strong, theoretically predicted correlations with established health status instruments:

• Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): The BPI Pain Severity Index correlates strongly ($r = -.65$ to $-.78$) with the SF-36 Bodily Pain subscale. The BPI Pain Interference Index demonstrates substantial negative correlations with the SF-36 Physical Functioning ($r = -.60$ to $-.74$) and Role-Physical ($r = -.58$ to $-.70$) domains, as well as moderate correlations with the Mental Health domain ($r = -.42$ to $-.55$).
• McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ): The BPI Severity items demonstrate high correlations with the MPQ Present Pain Intensity (PPI) index and sensory descriptor sums ($r = .62$ to $.75$). The BPI interference items correlate significantly with the MPQ affective descriptor subscales.
• Visual Analogue Scales (VAS): Comparative psychometric analyses indicate near-perfect linear alignment between BPI 0–10 numeric scales and traditional 100mm horizontal VAS scales ($r = .82$ to $.91$), with the BPI exhibiting fewer completion errors and missing responses, particularly among elderly and cognitively fatigued populations.

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

The BPI demonstrates exceptional known-groups validity, successfully distinguishing between clinical groups expected to differ systematically in pain profiles:

• Disease Staging and Functional Status: In cancer populations, BPI Severity and Interference composite scores rise significantly in parallel with declining Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and advancing Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) impairment.
• Metastatic Burden: The instrument reliably discriminates between localized cancer and metastatic disease involving osseous metastases, yielding statistically significant differences in worst and average pain scores ($p < .001$).
• Discriminant Separation from Unrelated Constructs: The BPI Interference subscale exhibits lower, divergent correlations with constructs such as verbal intelligence, executive functioning, and generalized social desirability bias ($r < .20$), demonstrating that it captures functional impairment driven specifically by physical pain rather than general negative affectivity or non-somatic cognitive traits.

Predictive and Longitudinal Validity

The BPI has demonstrated prospective predictive validity across numerous clinical trials. Reductions in BPI Pain Interference scores following neurolytic celiac plexus blocks, spinal cord stimulation, or systemic opioid dose titrations systematically predict subsequent improvements in global health-related quality of life, reductions in emergency room visits, and lower healthcare utilization. Furthermore, baseline BPI Pain Severity has been established as an independent prognostic indicator of survival duration in selected cohorts with advanced prostate, breast, and lung neoplasms, likely serving as a proxy for systemic inflammatory burden and metastatic proliferation.

Reliability

The reliability of the BPI has been exhaustively documented across diverse medical conditions, operational settings, and cultural adaptations.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates using Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) consistently surpass classical psychometric acceptability thresholds ($ge .70$) for individual diagnostic decision-making:

• Pain Severity Subscale: Across landmark validation studies (Cleeland & Ryan, 1994; Daut et al., 1983; Keller et al., 2004), Cronbach’s alpha for the four severity items (worst, least, average, now) ranges reliably between .80 and .89.
• Pain Interference Subscale: The seven interference items demonstrate high internal consistency, with alpha coefficients typically falling between .85 and .93 across oncologic and non-malignant chronic pain cohorts.
• Inter-item correlations within the interference dimension consistently fall within the ideal range ($r = .45$ to $.72$), indicating high conceptual cohesion without excessive item redundancy.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because acute pain naturally fluctuates, evaluating the test-retest reliability of the BPI requires standardized intervals under stable clinical conditions:

• Short-Interval Stability (1 to 24 Hours): Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for BPI Severity items under stable analgesic regimens range from .82 to .93.
• Intermediate Stability (1 to 2 Weeks): Among stable outpatients with chronic non-malignant pain (e.g., osteoarthritis, diabetic peripheral neuropathy) with no changes in treatment, test-retest ICCs range from .78 to .88 for both the Severity and Interference subscales, indicating that the instrument captures stable clinical baselines without measurement instability.

Standard Error of Measurement and Responsiveness

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for the BPI across literature benchmarks hovers around 0.7 to 1.1 points on the 0–10 scale. The Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) has been empirically defined across several large prospective trials:

• For the Pain Severity Index, an absolute reduction of 1.0 to 2.0 points (or a 30% to 33% proportional reduction) represents a clinically meaningful difference associated with noticeable patient-reported relief.
• For the Pain Interference Index, an absolute reduction of 1.0 point corresponds to a clinically meaningful improvement in physical and psychological functioning.

Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the BPI has been rigorously evaluated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across numerous sample populations.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Early psychometric evaluations by Cleeland and colleagues utilizing principal axis factoring and principal component analysis with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations consistently yielded a clean two-factor solution representing approximately 60% to 75% of the total shared variance:

• Factor 1: Pain Interference. The seven interference items (general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with others, sleep, enjoyment of life) load heavily onto this factor, with factor loadings typically ranging from .65 to .88. Cross-loadings onto the severity factor are minimal (generally $< .30$).
• Factor 2: Pain Severity. The four intensity items (worst, least, average, right now) load onto this factor, with primary factor loadings typically spanning .72 to .89.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent modern CFA studies utilizing maximum likelihood and robust weighted least squares estimation have validated this two-factor model against alternative structural formulations (e.g., unidimensional models or orthogonal three-factor models):

• Two-Factor Correlated Model: This model provides an optimal fit to the empirical data across both cancer and non-cancer samples. Representative goodness-of-fit indices reported across studies (e.g., Keller et al., 2004; Tan et al., 2004) consistently meet rigorous psychometric criteria: Comparative Fit Index ($ ext{CFI}) ge .95$, Tucker-Lewis Index ($ ext{TLI}) ge .94$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($ ext{RMSEA}) le .06$ (with 90% confidence intervals between .04 and .08), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ($ ext{SRMR}) le .04$.
• Three-Factor Alternative Structures: In specific orthopedic, musculoskeletal, and physical therapy populations, some structural analyses have identified an alternative three-factor configuration. This model separates the interference dimension into two distinct constructs: Physical/Activity Interference (general activity, walking, normal work) and Affective/Emotional Interference (mood, relations with others, enjoyment of life, sleep). While this three-factor model occasionally demonstrates marginal improvements in statistical fit ($Delta ext{CFI} pprox .01$), the classical two-factor model remains the primary paradigm due to its empirical parsimony and widespread clinical utility.

Factor Invariance

Multigroup CFA has established scalar and metric invariance across demographic variables (e.g., sex, age brackets) and clinical subgroups (e.g., cancer-induced vs. non-cancer chronic low back pain), confirming that differences in observed scores reflect true differences in the underlying latent constructs rather than item measurement bias.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration of the Brief Pain Inventory is designed to minimize cognitive burden while maximizing phenotypic precision. Below is a structured overview of the test specifications:

• Instrument Designation: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) – Standard Long Form.
• Target Population: Adult and adolescent patients experiencing acute pain, chronic non-cancer pain, cancer-related pain, post-operative discomfort, or pain secondary to terminal medical conditions.
• Administration Modality: Self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire, digital/electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tablet interface, or clinician/researcher-administered scripted interview (for populations with visual or motor limitations).
• Estimated Completion Time: 5 to 10 minutes for the Long Form; 2 to 3 minutes for the core Short Form.
• Item Composition:
  • Item 1: Binary screening question assessing pain presence other than minor everyday discomfort during the past week (Yes / No).
  • Item 2: Spatial topographical body manikin diagram (anterior and posterior views) for shading pain locations and marking the locus of maximum pain with an “X”.
  • Items 3–6: Four quantitative pain severity ratings (worst, least, average, right now).
  • Items 7–8: Qualitative free-text response items identifying mitigating and exacerbating factors.
  • Item 9: Qualitative free-text listing of current analgesics and physical therapies.
  • Item 10: Single-item percentage rating of therapeutic pain relief achieved via treatments (0% to 100%).
  • Item 11: Multiple-choice categorical item assessing the duration of analgesic relief before pain recurrence.
  • Item 12: Categorical attribution battery examining the patient’s perceived etiology of the pain (treatment effects, primary disease, unrelated medical condition).
  • Item 13: A 15-item adjective checklist capturing sensory and affective qualities of the pain (aching, throbbing, shooting, stabbing, gnawing, sharp, tender, burning, exhausting, tiring, penetrating, nagging, numb, miserable, unbearable).
  • Item 14 (A–G): Seven functional interference domains (General Activity, Mood, Walking Ability, Normal Work, Relations with Other People, Sleep, Enjoyment of Life).
• Response Metrics:
  • Severity Scale: 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) anchored from 0 (“No Pain”) to 10 (“Pain as bad as you can imagine”).
  • Relief Scale: 11-point Percentage Rating Scale anchored from 0% (“No Relief”) to 100% (“Complete Relief”).
  • Interference Scale: 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) anchored from 0 (“Does not interfere”) to 10 (“Completely interferes”).
  • Descriptive & Etiological Scales: Binary (Yes / No) and categorical selections.
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Pain Severity Score: Calculated as the arithmetic mean of items 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Worst, Least, Average, Now). Alternatively, “Worst Pain” (Item 3) is frequently analyzed as an independent primary endpoint in oncologic regulatory trials. Scores range from 0 to 10.
  • Pain Interference Score: Calculated as the arithmetic mean of the seven sub-items in Item 14 (A through G). A valid mean score requires completion of at least 4 of the 7 items; if fewer than 4 items are answered, the interference scale is deemed invalid due to missing data. Scores range from 0 to 10.
  • Severity Cut-Point Categories (Serlin et al., 1995):
    • Mild Pain: 1 to 4
    • Moderate Pain: 5 to 6
    • Severe Pain: 7 to 10

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The precursor to the BPI, the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire, was introduced by Ronald L. Daut, Charles S. Cleeland, and Richard C. Flanery in 1983. Following refinement and international cross-cultural field trials, the instrument was formally designated as the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) in 1994 (Cleeland & Ryan, 1994).

Copyright and Distribution Governance: The Brief Pain Inventory is copyrighted by The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, through the Department of Symptom Research. Dr. Charles S. Cleeland and the institution hold all intellectual property rights.

Licensing and Accessibility Structure:

• Non-Funded Academic, Clinical, and Non-Commercial Research: MD Anderson Cancer Center permits access to the BPI free of charge for clinical practice, non-funded academic research, individual educational use, and qualifying non-profit clinical investigations. Registration, formal request submission, and execution of a non-commercial End User License Agreement (EULA) through the official MD Anderson Symptom Research portal are required prior to clinical or academic implementation.
• Funded Clinical Trials and Commercial Entities: For pharmaceutical companies, contract research organizations (CROs), commercial medical device developers, and for-profit entities conducting sponsored clinical trials, licensing fees apply. Commercial licenses must be secured directly through the MD Anderson Office of Technology Commercialization.
• Linguistic Adaptations: The BPI has been translated into more than 40 languages and culturally adapted following rigorous forward-backward translation protocols. These approved translations are available from the copyright holders to prevent unverified modifications that could compromise psychometric validity.

References

Caraceni, A., Mendoza, T. R., Mencaglia, E., Baratella, C., Edwards, K., Forjaz, M. J., Martini, C., Serlin, R. C., de Conno, F., & Cleeland, C. S. (1996). A validation study of an Italian version of the Brief Pain Inventory (Breve Questionario per la Valutazione del Dolore). Pain, 65(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(95)00156-5

Cleeland, C. S. (1985). Measurement and prevalence of pain in cancer. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 1(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-2081(85)80041-3

Cleeland, C. S. (1991). Pain assessment in cancer. In D. Osoba (Ed.), Effect of cancer on quality of life (pp. 293–305). CRC Press.

Cleeland, C. S., Gonin, R., Hatfield, A. K., Edmonson, J. H., Blum, R. H., Stewart, J. A., & Pandya, K. J. (1994). Pain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 330(9), 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199403033300902

Cleeland, C. S., Ladinsky, J. L., Serlin, R. C., & Thuan, N. C. (1988). Multidimensional measurement of cancer pain: Comparisons of U.S. and Vietnamese patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 3(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-3924(88)90132-7

Cleeland, C. S., & Ryan, K. M. (1994). Pain assessment: Global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 23(2), 129–138.

Daut, R. L., & Cleeland, C. S. (1982). The prevalence and severity of pain in cancer. Cancer, 50(9), 1913–1918. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19821101)50:9<1913::aid-cncr2820500944>3.0.co;2-u

Daut, R. L., Cleeland, C. S., & Flanery, R. C. (1983). Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain, 17(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(83)90143-4

Farrar, J. T., Young, J. P., LaMoreaux, L., Werth, J. L., & Poole, R. M. (2001). Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain, 94(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9

Keller, S., Bann, C. M., Dodd, S. L., Schein, J., Mendoza, T. R., & Cleeland, C. S. (2004). Validity of the Brief Pain Inventory for use in noncancer pain. The Journal of Pain, 5(6), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2004.05.003

McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195165678.001.0001

Serlin, R. C., Mendoza, T. R., Nakamura, Y., Edwards, K. R., & Cleeland, C. S. (1995). When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading of pain severity by its interference with function. Pain, 61(2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(94)00178-H

Tan, G., Jensen, M. P., Thornby, J. I., & Shanti, B. F. (2004). Validation of the Brief Pain Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. The Journal of Pain, 5(2), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2003.12.005

Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., Brandenburg, N., Carr, D. B., Cleeland, C. S., Dionne, R., Farrar, J. T., Galer, B. S., Hewitt, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Katz, N. P., Kramer, L. D., Manning, D. C., McCormick, C. G., McDermott, M. P., McGrath, P., Quessy, S., … Witter, J. (2003). Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 106(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2003.08.001

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)