PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7162841

Assessing pain behavior: the UAB Pain Behavior Scale.

Scott J Richards·Cecilio Nepomuceno·Maxine Riles·Zehra Suer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Review of the chronic pain literature reveals that there have been few systematic attempts to devise rating scales which reliably and/or validly quantify pain behavior. The UAB Pain Behavior Scale was designed so that it could be administered rapidly by a variety of pain team personnel without sacrificing interrater reliability. The scale is described along with initial reliability and validity data. A summary of its use with chronic pain patients is presented.

Explore related subjects

Conditioning, OperantHumansPainPsychological TestsSick RoleJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Scott J Richards, Cecilio Nepomuceno, Maxine Riles, Zehra Suer. 1982. Assessing pain behavior: the UAB Pain Behavior Scale.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(82)90147-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

The locus and modulation of the location negative priming effect.

Responding to the location of a target is slower when it appears at a recent distractor location [ignored-repetition (IR) trial] than when it arises at a new position [control (CO) trial], defining the location negative priming (NP) effect. On IR trials, both the distractor location and response are from the prior trial, and the locus question asks whether the delayed responding that arises is caused by the reused distractor position (i.e., a location locus) or the need to execute a distractor output (i.e., a response locus). A location NP procedure was used, incorporating a many:1 location-to-response mapping design, along with a response cue on some trials. A response locus for the location NP effect was indicated. Distractor-turned-target responses took longer to initiate than new outputs (many:1 paradigm), and valid response cues reduced distractor response interference and the location NP effect. Importantly, a possible S-R compatibility problem within the many:1 S-R paradigm was not supported.

Conditioning, Operant↗
PubMed2006

Learning by operant conditioning as a nonlinear self-organized process.

Responses of individuals have been rewarded in fixed ratio operant conditioning experiments throughout the last 5 years. The long numerical series of performance rates so obtained have been analyzed by using Fourier spectra, obtaining 1/f noise, and wavelet techniques for the analysis of local variability. These techniques reveal that the evolution of data in each individual is nonlinear but it fluctuates showing self-organized patterns in successive time scales, which leads to a long term logarithmic growth. Based on these observations a model has been developed. It can simulate with a great accuracy the rate of response exhibited by our subjects in all time scales.

Conditioning, Operant↗
PubMed2005

Voluntary control of unavoidable action.

Goal-oriented behavior is usually portrayed to be directly related to incentive values. Underlying mechanisms are thought to include reward-oriented response bias and perceptual sensitivity. A recent electrophysiological study by Minamimoto et al. challenges this view, and reports neural activity in the thalamus that appears to counteract response bias. This type of activity might be crucial for our ability to engage voluntarily in actions that give little or no immediate return, but are necessary in the pursuit of long-term goals.

Conditioning, Operant↗