Evidence for the use of a numerical rating scale to assess the intensity of pediatric pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Numerical Rating Scale-11 (NRS-11) when used to assess pediatric pain intensity. We performed two studies: 175 schoolchildren, aged 8-12, participated in Study 1 and 63 children undergoing surgery and aged 6-16, participated in Study 2. The NRS-11 showed (a) adequate convergent construct validity when correlated with the Faces Pain Scale - Revised (FPS-R; r(1)=0.78, r(2)=0.93); (b) adequate discriminant validity in relation to measures of pain-related affect (z(1)=3.55, z(2)=7.62) and disability (z(1)=7.62, z(2)=6.83); and (c) adequate criterion-related validity using measures of pain-related affect (r(1)=.58, r(2)=.66), disability (r(1)=0.22, r(2)=.39), and quality of life (r(2)=-.46). Schoolchildren were asked whether they preferred using the NRS-11 or the FPS-R when reporting the intensity of their pain. While both sexes and both the younger and older age groups preferred the FPS-R, this preference was more marked among girls and younger children. The NRS-11 has shown an acceptable level of validity for assessing pain intensity in both samples, however, additional research is needed in order to fully clarify the lower age limit in which the NRS-11 can be used.
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.
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 | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it