Borg's rating of perceived exertion scales: do the verbal anchors mean the same for different clinical groups?

Objective: To examine the interpretation of the verbal anchors used in the Borg rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scales in different clinical groups and a healthy control group. Design: Prospective experimental study. Setting: Rehabilitation center. Participants: Nineteen subjects with brain injury, 16 with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and 20 healthy controls. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Subjects used a visual analog scale (VAS) to rate their interpretation of the verbal anchors from the Borg RPE 6-20 and the newer 10-point category ratio scale. Results: All groups placed the verbal anchors in the order that they occur on the scales. There were significant within-group differences (P > .05) between VAS scores for 4 verbal anchors in the control group, 8 in the CLBP group, and 2 in the brain injury group. There was no significant difference in rating of each verbal anchor between the groups (P > .05). Conclusions: All subjects rated the verbal anchors in the order they occur on the scales, but there was less agreement in rating of each verbal anchor among subjects in the brain injury group. Clinicians should consider the possibility of small discrepancies in the meaning of the verbal anchors to subjects, particularly those recovering from brain injury, when they evaluate exercise perceptions.

Attempts to control pain prioritize attention to signals of pain: an experimental study

Clinical evidence suggests that a persistent search for solutions for chronic pain may bring along costs at the cognitive, affective, and behavioral level. Specifically, attempts to control pain may fuel hypervigilance and prioritize attention towards pain-related information. This hypothesis was investigated in an experiment with 41 healthy volunteers. Prioritization of attention towards a signal for pain was measured using an adaptation of a visual search paradigm in which participants had to search for a target presented in a varying number of colored circles. One of these colors (Conditioned Stimulus) became a signal for pain (Unconditioned Stimulus: electrocutaneous stimulus at tolerance level) using a classical conditioning procedure. Intermixed with the visual search task, participants also performed another task. In the pain-control group, participants were informed that correct and fast responses on trials of this second task would result in an avoidance of the Unconditioned Stimulus. In the comparison group, performance on the second task was not instrumental in controlling pain. Results showed that in the pain-control group, attention was more prioritized towards the Conditioned Stimulus than in the comparison group. The theoretical and clinical implications of these results are discussed.