MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychometric analysis of a Taiwan‐version pain assessment scale for preterm infants

2011· article· en· W1818612652 on OpenAlexaff
Jen‐Jiuan Liaw, Luke Yang, Hsiu‐Ling Chou, Ti Yin, Shih‐Ching Chao, Tsorng‐Yeh Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPain assessmentMedicineVisual analogue scaleGestational agePain scaleHeelGold standard (test)Construct validityPsychometricsPhysical therapyPediatricsPregnancyPain managementClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To determine the inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, construct and concurrent validity and feasibility of the pain assessment scale for preterm infants. BACKGROUND: Repeated exposure to painful procedures has an adverse impact on preterm infants' health outcomes. Although many scales are available for assessing these infants' pain, only a few reliably and validly assess pain and no gold standard has been established in clinical practice. DESIGN: Instrument development and psychometric analysis. METHODS: Preterm infants (n = 60) born 27·6-36·3 weeks gestational age were assessed for pain 3 minutes before (phase I), during (phase II), 3 minutes after (phase III) and the tenth minute after (phase IV) heel-stick procedures. Pain scores were independently coded from video recordings and observations by three trained nurses using our pain-assessment scale, premature infant pain profile and visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Scores on the pain assessment scale for preterm infants differed significantly across four phases of heel-stick procedures (F = 56·86, p < 0·0001). Internal consistency was 0·84 and inter-rater reliability was 0·88-0·93. Scores on our pain scale correlated well with scores on the premature infant pain profile (0·74-0·83) and visual analogue scale (0·72-0·81). CONCLUSIONS: The pain assessment scale for preterm infants integrates all possible pain indicators, with each item modified for clinicians' simple and easy pain measurement to potentially yield different information. Our scale is valid, reliable and feasible for preterm infants with gestational age > 27 weeks. Further examination of the scale's psychometrics is recommended with diverse samples of infants and different painful procedures. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The pain assessment scale for preterm infants clearly defines item scoring and weighting, consistently discriminates different levels of pain and helps nurses to recognise infants' pain. Nurses can easily remember the definition of each item, allowing them to use our scale to evaluate preterm infants' pain at any time and to provide pain-relief interventions when needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207