+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise



A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise



Chest 116(5): 1208-1217



Objective: To assess which subjective scale, the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Borg CR10 (Borg) scale, or the Likert scale (LS), if any, is decidedly more reproducible and sensitive to change in the assessment of symptoms. Design: Prospective clinical study. Setting: Exercise laboratory. Participants: Twenty-three physically active male subjects (mean +- SD age of 30 +- 4 years old) were recruited. Intervention: Each subject attended the exercise laboratory on four occasions at intervals of 1 week. Three subjective scales were used: (1) the VAS (continuous scale); (2) the Borg scale (12 fixed points); and (3) the Likert scale (LS; 5 fixed points). Four identical submaximal tests were given (2 min at 60% maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) and 6 min at 70% VO2max). Two tests were undertaken to assess the reproducibility of scores that were obtained with each subjective scale. Two other tests were undertaken to assess the sensitivity of each scale to a change in symptom perception: a double-blind treatment with propranolol, 80 mg, (ie, active therapy; to increase the sensation of breathlessness and general fatigue during exercise) or matching placebo. The subjective scale scores were measured at 1 min 30 s, 5 min 30 s, and 7 min 15 s of exercise. Reproducibility was defined as the proportion of total variance (ie, between-subject plus within-subject variance) explained by the between-subject variance given as a percentage. Sensitivity was defined as the effect of the active drug therapy over the variation within subjects. Results: Overall, the VAS performed best in terms of reproducibility for breathlessness and general fatigue, with reproducibility coefficients as high as 78%. For sensitivity, the VAS was best for breathlessness (ratio, 2.7) and the Borg scale was most sensitive for general fatigue (ratio, 3.0). The relationships between the respective psychological and physiologic variables were reasonably stable throughout the testing procedure, with overall typical correlations of 0.73 to 0.82 Conclusion: This study suggests that subjective scales can reproducibly measure symptoms during steady-state exercise and can detect the effect of a drug intervention. The VAS and Borg scales appear to be the best subjective scales for this purpose.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 010056257

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 10559077

DOI: 10.1378/chest.116.5.1208


Related references

Preconditions for sensitivity in measuring change: visual analogue scales compared to rating scales in a Likert format. Psychological Reports 77(2): 475-480, 1995

A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. Journal of Chronic Diseases 40(12): 1129-1133, 1987

Investigating measurement equivalence of visual analogue scales and Likert-type scales in Internet-based personality questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods 49(6): 2173-2181, 2017

Repeatability and reproducibility of numerical rating scales and visual analogue scales for canine pruritus severity scoring. Veterinary Dermatology 18(5): 294-300, 2007

A comparison of likert and visual analogue scales data from a randomized trial. Clinical Research 37(2): 315A, 1989

A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children's questionnaires. Acta Paediatrica 93(6): 830-835, 2004

Acceptability of visual analogue scales in the clinical setting: a comparison with verbal rating scales in postoperative pain. Methods and Findings in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology 11(2): 123-127, 1989

Comparison of visual analogue and Likert scales in evaluation of an emergency department bedside teaching programme. Emergency Medicine Australasia 23(1): 68-75, 2011

Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 41(6): 1073-1093, 2011

How should we use the visual analogue scale (VAS) in rehabilitation outcomes? II: Visual analogue scales as ratio scales: an alternative to the view of Kersten et al. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 44(9): 800, 2012

Comparison of Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) and Verbal Rating Scales (VRS) as Assessment Tools of Pain Intensity and Pain Unpleasantness. PhysioTherapy 82(11): 638-0, 1996

Pain measurement scales: a comparison of the visual analogue and faces rating scales in measuring pressure ulcer pain. Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing 28(6): 290-296, 2001

Visual analogue scales or fixed point scales for grading endoscopic findings. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology Suppl. 25(176): 23, 1990

Visual analogue scales vas compared to simple descriptive scales sds in ulcerative colitis trials. Gastroenterology 92(5 Part 2): 1409, 1987

Sliders, visual analogue scales, or buttons: Influence of formats and scales in mobile and desktop surveys. Mathematical Population Studies 25(2): 112-122, 2018