Chest ACCP Education Calendar
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Killian, K. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Killian, K. J.
(Chest. 1985;88:84S-90S.)
© 1985 American College of Chest Physicians

The Objective Measurement of Breathlessness

Kieran J. Killian M.B.1

1 From the Respiratory Service, Department of Medicine, McMaster University Medical Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Both direct and indirect psychophysical methods can be used to measure breathlessness. With indirect methods, detection thresholds can be defined. Direct methods are easier to apply and give more information than indirect methods. Direct methods include interval (partition) and ratio scales, which are easy to apply; both have advantages and disadvantages. The selection of scale depends largely on the question addressed. For comparison across individuals or for the measurement of absolute magnitude (however imprecise), simple category scales are adequate and useful. Open magnitude scaling is best used to define the stimulus parameters influencing perceptual magnitude. Comparison across groups or individuals using exponents as an index of perceptual sensitivity should be interpreted with caution. Where possible, alternative methods should be used to validate differences found. The age-old bias against sensory measurement may be in part our inability to understand the sensory mechanisms and have little to do with the validity of the measurements.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1985 by the American College of Chest Physicians.