External validity and reliability of the psychosocial assessment tool (PAT) among Canadian parents of children newly diagnosed with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Psychosocial Screening Tool (PAT) was developed and validated with a sample of caregivers of children newly diagnosed with cancer in the United States. This study aimed to assess cultural adaptation (Phase 1) and validity and reliability of the revised PAT (PATrev) with a Canadian sample (Phase 2). PROCEDURE: In Phase 1, a convenience sample of seven parents of children who were treated for cancer and six pediatric oncology healthcare experts participated. In Phase 2, 67 parents of children newly diagnosed with cancer from 4 Canadian pediatric cancer centers participated. To assess reliability and validity of the PATrev, parents completed behavioral (BASC-2) and quality of life (PedsQL) instruments about the child and an anxiety inventory (STAI) about themselves. RESULTS: The PAT required minor changes to be culturally adapted for the Canadian population. The PATrev had strong inter-rater (0.77) test-retest (0.75), and internal consistency reliability (0.85), as well as moderate to strong validity comparing PATrev child's problems and PedsQL total (-0.49), PedsQL anxiety (-0.47), BASC-2 internalizing (0.64), behavioral (0.63), and adaptive scores (-0.56). PATrev discriminative validity was confirmed with BASC-2 scores (AUR scores of 0.70-0.74). PATrev parental stressors were strongly correlated to STAI scores (0.53). Finally, agreement between PATrev child's problems and parental anxiety scores was moderate (0.47). CONCLUSION: This study supports the original PAT, demonstrates PATrev is a reliable and valid psychosocial screening tool, and provides unique evidence regarding early psychosocial risk in the family, which have important implications for guiding psychosocial practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".