Numeric Pain Rating Scale

Abstract

The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS or NRS-11) is one of the most widely utilized, psychometrically validated, unidimensional instruments designed for the quantitative self-assessment of subjective pain intensity in clinical and research settings. Developed within the broader traditions of psychophysical scaling and standardized across medical contexts since the mid-20th century, the NRS measures the perceived sensory magnitude of pain via an 11-point discrete ordinal scale ranging from 0 (“No pain”) to 10 (“Worst possible pain” or “Worst pain imaginable”). The instrument can be administered verbally, visually via horizontal or vertical lines, or electronically, typically requiring less than one minute to complete. While intrinsically unidimensional—capturing the sensory-discriminative domain rather than affective-motivational or cognitive-evaluative pain dimensions—the NRS is frequently adapted to evaluate multiple temporal facets, such as current, least, worst, and average pain over varying recall windows (e.g., past 24 hours, past week). Psychometric investigations across diverse patient cohorts (including acute trauma, post-operative recovery, musculoskeletal disorders, oncology, and chronic non-cancer pain) demonstrate exemplary test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.67 to 0.96) and robust convergent validity against alternative metrics such as the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), with correlations consistently exceeding r = 0.80. Modern psychometric evaluations employing Rasch measurement models and Item Response Theory (IRT) confirm the monotonic ordering of its categories, while longitudinal sensitivity-to-change analyses establish a 2-point reduction (or approximately 30% relative decrease) as the standard Minimally Important Clinical Difference (MCID). Due to its low cognitive burden, minimal administrative overhead, high compliance rates, and lack of visual-motor coordination prerequisites, the NRS remains a gold standard in global pain measurement protocols.

Keywords

Numeric Pain Rating Scale, NRS-11, pain measurement, psychometrics, pain intensity, Visual Analogue Scale, clinical outcome assessment, self-report measurement, chronic pain, IMMPACT guidelines

Authors

The Numeric Pain Rating Scale does not have a single proprietary inventor; rather, it emerged historically from the convergence of early psychophysics research and clinical analgesic trials during the mid-20th century. Foundational operationalizations of numerical rating scales for subjective states trace back to experimental psychologists such as S. S. Stevens (Harvard University) in the 1950s, who investigated numerical magnitude estimation. The formal introduction and validation of discrete 0–10 numerical scales into modern clinical pain medicine were catalyzed by interdisciplinary clinical researchers in the late 1970s and 1980s, most notably W. W. Downie and colleagues (1978) at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Mark P. Jensen, Paul Karoly, and Sheri Braver (1986) at Arizona State University, and nurse-researcher Margo McCaffery. Because the instrument was placed into the public domain through early medical literature, no single academic institution or corporate entity holds proprietary ownership or copyright.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale is to provide a rapid, standardized, and clinically valid quantification of an individual’s conscious perception of subjective pain intensity. Pain is an intrinsically private, neurobiological experience comprising sensory, emotional, and cognitive dimensions. In routine healthcare delivery, epidemiological research, and prospective clinical trials, objective biomarkers (such as physiological indices, functional neuroimaging, or inflammatory profiles) fail to correlate linearly with the subjective distress and functional limitation experienced by the patient. Consequently, reliable self-report remains the epistemological gold standard in pain assessment. The NRS was developed to translate this private phenomenological experience into an objective, standardized integer metric that facilitates inter-individual comparisons and intra-individual longitudinal tracking.

Clinically, the NRS serves multiple diagnostic and therapeutic functions. It is deployed as a baseline assessment tool during medical triage to stratify acute injury severity, establish analgesic dosing protocols, and monitor post-operative recovery trajectories. In chronic pain management—such as in osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome, and neuropathic disorders—the scale enables clinicians to systematically evaluate therapeutic interventions, including pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, interventional nerve blocks, and cognitive-behavioral therapies. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) identifies the 0–10 NRS as a mandatory core outcome measure for all clinical efficacy trials evaluating chronic pain interventions.

Beyond simple point-in-time assessments, the theoretical rationale for employing the NRS lies in its balance between measurement precision and cognitive simplicity. While continuous measures like the Visual Analogue Scale require intact abstract spatial reasoning, precise motor execution, and adequate visual acuity to place a mark along a 100-mm line, the NRS demands only basic numerical comprehension. This makes the NRS uniquely resilient against administrative failure in vulnerable clinical demographics, including elderly populations with mild cognitive impairment, pediatric populations over eight years of age, emergency room patients with acute physical trauma, and individuals with impaired visual or motor function. Furthermore, the format can be administered verbally via bedside interview or telephone follow-up, expanding its utility in tele-health, community health surveys, and large-scale epidemiological monitoring.

Psychological Construct

The Numeric Pain Rating Scale measures the psychological construct of pain intensity, specifically localized within the sensory-discriminative dimension of pain experience. According to the foundational multidimensional framework proposed by Ronald Melzack and Kenneth Casey (1968), pain processing involves three interacting neuro-psychological systems: the sensory-discriminative dimension (reflecting spatial, temporal, and intensive characteristics), the affective-motivational dimension (reflecting unpleasantness, emotional distress, and escape tendencies), and the cognitive-evaluative dimension (reflecting meaning, anticipation, and attention). The NRS intentionally isolates the sensory-discriminative magnitude, abstracting the raw volume of perceived nociception away from the emotional distress or behavioral impairment that pain evokes.

Within psychometric theory, pain intensity is treated as a continuous subjective latent variable that the NRS partitions into an 11-point discrete category continuum. Each numerical value represents an ordered threshold of neurosensory activation translated through conscious perception:

• Value 0 (Zero Level): Represents the complete absence of painful sensation (nociceptive baseline). It is defined by explicit anchor text such as “No pain” or “Geen pijn.”
• Values 1 through 3 (Mild Pain): Represents sensory perceptions that cross the perceptual threshold into noxious awareness but maintain minimal physiological arousal and low demand on attentional reserves. Patients commonly describe this bracket as an ignorable ache or minor discomfort that does not inherently impede activities of daily living.
• Values 4 through 6 (Moderate Pain): Represents painful sensations of sufficient neurochemical salience to consistently capture focal attention, disrupt executive cognitive performance, and interfere with physical activities. This intermediate level represents a common therapeutic target where non-opioid and adjuvant interventions are frequently evaluated.
• Values 7 through 9 (Severe Pain): Reflects intensive nociceptive input that dominates sensory consciousness, severely impairs functional independence, prevents basic cognitive tasks, and evokes marked autonomic activation (e.g., tachycardia, diaphoresis, hyperventilation).
• Value 10 (Maximum Theoretical Anchor): Represents the upper ceiling of human pain endurance, defined semantically as “Worst possible pain,” “Pain as bad as it could possibly be,” or “Worst pain imaginable.” This anchor serves as a subjective cognitive benchmark against which all experienced sensations are scaled.

Crucially, because pain intensity fluctuates over circadian cycles and physical exertion, clinical application often adapts the unidimensional construct into structured temporal composite profiles. Rather than relying on a single snapshot of “current pain,” psychometrically robust protocols evaluate: (a) Current Pain Intensity (instantaneous sensory state), (b) Worst Pain Intensity (peak nociceptive threshold over a defined interval, capturing episodic exacerbations or flare-ups), (c) Least Pain Intensity (trough levels, reflecting baseline refractory pain or maximal medication effect), and (d) Average Pain Intensity (a cognitive integration of total sensory burden over 24 hours or 7 days). Research confirms that composite scores across these items offer superior construct representation compared to single instantaneous ratings, minimizing recall bias and transient emotional fluctuations.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Numeric Pain Rating Scale derives from classical psychophysics, particularly the scaling paradigms formalized by Ernst Heinrich Weber, Gustav Theodor Fechner, and S. S. Stevens. Fechner’s logarithmic law asserted that subjective sensation magnitude scales as the logarithm of physical stimulus intensity. However, S. S. Stevens revolutionized sensory measurement by formulating Stevens’ Power Law ($S = k I^a$), demonstrating that for noxious cutaneous, thermal, and mechanical stimuli, perceived subjective intensity ($S$) grows as a power function of physical stimulus intensity ($I$) with an exponent greater than 1.0 (typically $\alpha \approx 1.2$ to $1.8$ for pain). This mathematical relationship implies that as physical tissue damage or noxious stimulation increases linearly, the internal human subjective experience of pain escalates exponentially.

When applying Stevens’ magnitude estimation to the clinical NRS, the patient is required to execute an internal, neuro-cognitive mapping process. The nervous system integrates ascending peripheral nociceptive barrages through spinal dorsal horn circuits and thalamocortical networks—a process fundamentally modulated by the Gate Control Theory of Melzack and Wall (1965). Descending serotonergic, noradrenergic, and opioid pathways modulate the sensory signal prior to conscious awareness. Once noxious information reaches the somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and insula, the patient must perform a dual cognitive transformation: first, calibrating the absolute sensory intensity against their idiosyncratic autobiographical memory of physical suffering (the internal scale), and second, projecting that subjective continuum onto an 11-point discrete numerical scale (category partitioning).

From an information-processing perspective, the NRS functions through category-scale partitioning. Theorists in cognitive judgment and decision-making demonstrate that human working memory operates optimally when categorizing continuous perceptual dimensions into approximately $7 \pm 2$ distinct informational bins (Miller’s law). The 11-point structure of the NRS provides sufficient resolution to avoid information loss (which plagues coarse 4-point or 5-point Verbal Rating Scales) while preventing the arbitrary cognitive noise, motor imprecision, and visual-spatial translation errors inherent in 100-mm continuous visual analogue scales. Additionally, the Biopsychosocial Model emphasizes that although the NRS is designed to isolate sensory intensity, numerical self-reporting is inherently social; the communicative act of conveying an integer score to a healthcare provider involves contextual appraisal, coping mechanisms, and secondary gain considerations, all of which frame the cognitive translation process.

Validity

The validity of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale has been rigorously evaluated across hundreds of empirical trials, establishing strong evidence for criterion, convergent, discriminant, and construct validity across diverse medical specialties.

Convergent and Criterion Validity

Because there is no external physiological gold standard (“criterion”) for subjective pain, criterion-related validity is typically established via concurrent convergence with validated legacy instruments, most notably the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). In their landmark methodological comparison, Downie et al. (1978) demonstrated a Pearson correlation of $r = 0.95$ between the 11-point NRS and the 100-mm horizontal VAS among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Subsequent cross-validation studies (Jensen et al., 1986; Breivik et al., 2008) confirmed high concurrent validity coefficients across acute post-operative, oncology, and musculoskeletal samples, with correlations routinely falling between $r = 0.80$ and $r = 0.96$. Correlations between the NRS and the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire have similarly demonstrated robust coefficients ($r = 0.72$ to $0.85$), verifying that the numerical scale accurately registers the core sensory construct.

Construct and Discriminant Validity

Construct validity has been verified through experimental pain models and longitudinal therapeutic trials demonstrating predictable sensitivity to physiological perturbation and targeted clinical interventions. In controlled experimental paradigms using calibrated thermal thermodes or mechanical pressure algometers, the NRS exhibits a monotonic, direct dose-response trajectory as physical stimulus intensity increases. In clinical pharmacological investigations, the NRS systematically captures expected drops in pain following intravenous or oral analgesic administration (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, local anesthetics) relative to placebo controls, with statistically significant effect sizes (Cohen’s $d > 0.80$).

Discriminant validity is supported by investigations demonstrating that the NRS distinguishes primary sensory pain intensity from general psychological distress, depressive symptomatology, and pain-related anxiety. When administered alongside measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) or the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the NRS correlates moderately with distress ($r = 0.30$ to $0.48$), confirming that while affective suffering frequently accompanies severe physical pain, the NRS specifically targets the nociceptive sensory volume rather than emotional distress alone.

Responsiveness and Minimally Important Clinical Difference (MCID)

The scale exhibits exceptional responsiveness to clinically meaningful change over time. In a foundational pooled analysis of 2,724 patients across ten multicenter clinical trials of chronic pain, Farrar et al. (2001) utilized anchor-based methods (linking NRS change scores to patient global impressions of change) to identify the raw and relative Minimally Important Clinical Difference (MCID). The authors demonstrated that a reduction of approximately 2 points on the 0–10 NRS, or a 30% relative reduction from baseline, corresponds to a clinically important, patient-perceived improvement (“much improved” or “very much improved”). Reductions below 1 point or less than 15% fall within standard measurement error bounds and are generally perceived by patients as negligible.

Reliability

The reliability of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale has been extensively documented in clinical literature, focusing predominantly on test-retest stability, inter-rater concordance, and alternate-forms consistency.

Test-Retest Reliability

Because acute pain is by definition dynamic and fluctuating, traditional psychometric test-retest reliability must be evaluated within stable, steady-state clinical windows or within chronic pain populations where baseline nociception remains relatively constant. In cohorts of stable chronic mechanical low back pain, osteoarthritis, and neuropathic disorders, short-term test-retest intervals (ranging from 1 hour to 24 hours without intervening treatment) consistently yield Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) between 0.67 and 0.96, indicating good to excellent reproducibility. For example, Childs et al. (2005) investigated test-retest reliability in patients with spinal pain across a 24-to-48-hour window, reporting an ICC of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65–0.88) for the average 11-point NRS score. When composite indices are calculated (combining current, best, and worst pain over 24 hours), test-retest reliability frequently exceeds $ICC = 0.90$.

Measurement Error and Smallest Detectable Change

Quantification of absolute measurement reliability provides clinicians with boundaries for determining whether an observed score shift represents genuine physiological change rather than random assessment noise. The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for the 11-point NRS is empirically estimated across chronic pain literature at approximately 0.50 to 1.02 points. Based on these SEM estimates, the Smallest Detectable Change (SDC), or Minimal Detectable Change at the 95% confidence interval ($MDC_{95} = 1.96 \times \sqrt{2} \times SEM$), ranges between 1.5 and 2.5 points. This statistical boundary closely aligns with Farrar’s independently derived 2-point MCID, proving that changes exceeding 2.0 points comfortably surpass random measurement error.

Alternate-Forms and Inter-Mode Concordance

The NRS demonstrates outstanding alternate-forms reliability across varying modes of delivery. When comparing visually presented horizontal numeric scales against verbally administered telephone or bedside interviews, cross-modality correlations consistently exceed $r = 0.90$ ($p < 0.001$). Similarly, electronic touchscreen translations of the NRS demonstrate near-perfect equivalence with traditional pen-and-paper numeric formats ($ICC > 0.95$), confirming that administrative interface modifications do not disrupt the underlying psychometric properties of the scale.

Factor Analysis

Because the Numeric Pain Rating Scale is fundamentally a single-item instrument when administered as a standalone measure of current pain, traditional classical test theory factor analytic techniques—such as Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) or Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) designed to assess multi-item covariance matrices—cannot be executed directly on a solitary numerical response. However, factor analytic and advanced psychometric evaluations have been extensively performed in two primary contexts: within multidimensional pain assessment batteries incorporating multiple NRS items, and via Item Response Theory (IRT) and Rasch modeling evaluating the internal category functioning of the 0–10 scale.

Factorial Structure within Multi-Item Composite Protocols

When the NRS is administered in its standardized composite clinical format—evaluating four discrete temporal parameters: Current Pain, Least Pain, Worst Pain, and Average Pain (as operationalized within the Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] and the IMMPACT recommendations)—EFA and CFA consistently demonstrate a clean, unidimensional factor structure representing a single latent construct: Pain Severity.

In structural equation modeling frameworks containing both pain severity NRS items and pain interference items (which assess disruption of sleep, mobility, and mood via 0–10 numerical ratings), CFA reliably confirms a distinct two-factor orthogonal or oblique model. Item factor loadings for the four NRS severity items on the latent Pain Severity factor are exceptionally high, typically exceeding $lambda = 0.80$ to $0.94$. Standard model fit indices for this two-factor structural solution demonstrate outstanding fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > 0.95
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > 0.94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.06
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < 0.04

Rasch Analysis and Category Functioning

Modern psychometric literature has applied the Rasch rating scale model and parametric IRT frameworks to evaluate whether the 11 integer categories (0 through 10) operate as an ordered, interval-level continuum. Key findings from Rasch investigations include:

• Monotonic Step Difficulty: Threshold calibrations between adjacent categories advance monotonically from 0 to 10. Higher latent pain severity is systematically required to endorse higher numerical ratings, verifying that the scale exhibits proper category progression without disordering.
• Item Infit and Outfit Statistics: Mean square error fit statistics (Infit and Outfit $MnSq$) for NRS items consistently fall well within the acceptable psychometric range of 0.60 to 1.40, indicating absence of significant construct noise or multidimensional contamination.
• Category Clustering and Interval Properties: Although the NRS is technically an ordinal scale, interval-level equivalence is frequently approximated between values 2 and 8. However, psychometricians note minor non-linear compression at the extremities: the psychological threshold distance required to move from 0 to 1 (“entering the pain state”) or from 9 to 10 (“reaching total agony”) is slightly larger than the distance between intermediate integer categories (such as 4 to 5 or 5 to 6). Despite this slight extremity compression, parametric statistical analyses (e.g., ANOVA, linear regression, t-tests) remain robust and yield outcomes highly congruent with non-parametric evaluations.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration, physical format, and scoring framework of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale are detailed below in a structured format:

• Instrument Type: Self-report, patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), unidimensional psychophysical rating scale.
• Format of Administration:
  • Visual Mode: An 11-point horizontal or vertical line displaying discrete integer boxes or markers numbered from 0 to 10 at equidistant intervals. Anchor descriptors are printed explicitly at the extreme margins.
  • Verbal Mode: Clinician-administered standardized verbal inquiry: “On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means no pain at all and 10 means the worst pain imaginable, what number best describes your pain right now?”
  • Electronic/Digital Mode: Digital touchscreen slider or numbered button array with programmed validation rules preventing invalid out-of-range entries.
• Item Count:
  • Standard Standalone Form: 1 item (Current Pain Intensity).
  • Clinical Comprehensive Composite Form: 3 or 4 items (evaluating Current, Worst, Least, and Average Pain).
• Target Population: Adult and geriatric patients across all inpatient and outpatient medical specialties, as well as pediatric patients aged 8 years and older with established numerical literacy.
• Recall Periods Available:
  • Instantaneous (“Right now” / Point-in-time).
  • 24-hour retrospective recall window.
  • 7-day retrospective recall window (standard for chronic pain trials).
• Response Scale and Anchors: Discrete 11-point integer scale (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
  • Left Anchor (0): “No pain” (Dutch equivalent: Geen enkele pijn).
  • Right Anchor (10): “Worst possible pain” or “Worst pain imaginable” (Dutch equivalent: De meest denkbare pijn).
• Scoring and Categorical Cut-Offs:
  • The raw score is recorded directly as the selected integer (range: 0 to 10).
  • Standardized consensus severity cut-off classification (widely validated following Serlin et al., 1995):
    • 0: No Pain
    • 1 – 3: Mild Pain
    • 4 – 6: Moderate Pain
    • 7 – 10: Severe Pain
  • Composite Score Calculation: When the 3-item (Current, Worst, Least) or 4-item (Current, Worst, Least, Average) formats are utilized, the score is calculated either as an arithmetic mean: $\text{Mean Score} = \frac{\sum \text{Items}}{N}$, or reported as individual descriptive indices across the temporal trajectory.
• Administration Time: Typically under 30 seconds for the single-item form; under 2 minutes for the multi-item temporal composite battery.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Numeric Pain Rating Scale originated across experimental and clinical psychometrics in the 1950s through 1970s. Because its fundamental design—an 11-point discrete numerical continuum bounded by descriptive verbal anchors—was introduced directly into the public domain through foundational biomedical literature (such as Downie et al., 1978; Jensen et al., 1986; and McCaffery, 1989), the NRS is entirely open access and public domain.

There are no licensing fees, copyright restrictions, or administrative royalties required for clinical utilization, electronic health record (EHR) integration, academic research, or commercial pharmacological trials. Clinicians and clinical investigators are legally and ethically free to translate, print, digitize, and administer the NRS without seeking prior authorization from any commercial publishing firm or academic institution. However, researchers are expected to cite foundational methodological literature to maintain academic transparency and specify exact anchor wording and administrative modalities in their study protocols.

References

Breivik, H., Borchgrevink, P. C., Allen, S. M., Rosseland, L. A., Romundstad, L., Hals, E. K. B., Kvarstein, G., & Stubhaug, A. (2008). Assessment of pain. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 101(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aen103

Childs, J. D., Piva, S. R., & Fritz, J. M. (2005). Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine, 30(11), 1331–1334. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29

Downie, W. W., Leatham, P. A., Rhind, V. M., Wright, V., Branco, J. A., & Anderson, J. A. (1978). Studies with pain rating scales. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 37(4), 378–381. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.37.4.378

Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Katz, N. P., Kerns, R. D., Stucki, G., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., Carr, D. B., Chandler, J., Cowan, P., Dionne, R., Galer, B. S., Hertz, S., Jadad, A. R., Kramer, L. D., Manning, D. C., … Witter, J. (2005). Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 113(1–2), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012

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

Hawker, G. A., 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, 63(S11), S240–S252. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543

Huskisson, E. C. (1974). Measurement of pain. The Lancet, 304(7889), 1127–1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(74)90884-8

Jensen, M. P., Karoly, P., & Braver, S. (1986). The measurement of clinical pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain, 27(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9

Jensen, M. P., Turner, J. A., Romano, J. M., & Fisher, L. D. (1999). Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures. Pain, 83(2), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00101-3

McCaffery, M., & Beebe, A. (1989). Pain: Clinical manual for nursing practice. C.V. Mosby.

Melzack, R., & Casey, K. L. (1968). Sensory, motivational, and central control determinants of pain: A new conceptual model. In D. Kenshalo (Ed.), The skin senses (pp. 423–443). Charles C Thomas.

Melzack, R., & Wall, P. D. (1965). Pain mechanisms: A new theory. Science, 150(3699), 971–979. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.150.3699.971

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

Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64(3), 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046162

Items of the Scale