Adapting the Iconic Pain Assessment Tool Version 2 (IPAT2) for Adults and Adolescents With Arthritis Pain Through Usability Testing and Refinement of Pain Quality Icons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate usability and pain iconography of the Iconic Pain Assessment Tool Version 2 (IPAT2), a self-report instrument that combines word descriptors and representative images (icons) to assess pain quality, intensity, and location, among adults and adolescents with arthritis. METHODS: Adults with inflammatory arthritis and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis partook in a single, semistructured, audio-recorded interview to evaluate: (1) the concreteness (object representativeness) and semantic distance (pain representativeness) of the IPAT2 iconography; (2) participants' current pain; and (3) perceptions and likes/dislikes of the IPAT2. Quantitative data were summarized descriptively and a line-by-line coding analysis identified key concepts from interview transcripts. The criterion for icon acceptability was mean and median ratings ≥5.0 for concreteness, semantic distance, and satisfaction for describing arthritis pain. RESULTS: The sample was comprised of 15 adults (87% female, mean 57 y) and 15 adolescents (67% female, mean age 15 y). The IPAT2 was reported to be easy to use and understand, well liked, quick to complete, and perceived as potentially valuable for communicating arthritis pain to health care providers. The median time needed to complete a single pain record, after 5-minute demonstration, was 2.3 minutes and 1.4 minutes for the adults and adolescents, respectively. All pain quality icons met or exceeded the criterion for acceptability. DISCUSSION: All a priori objectives for the IPAT2 were achieved in this sample of rheumatology outpatients. With its unique blend of pain quality descriptors and representative images, the IPAT2 may importantly aid the assessment of pain in adults and adolescents with arthritis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".