Comparison of Average Weekly Pain Using Recalled Paper and Momentary Assessment Electronic Diary Reports in Children With Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study investigated the construct validity of a multidimensional pain diary for youth with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and also compared participants' responses on electronic and retrospective diary measures. The purpose of the latter part of this study was to compare absolute agreement, between-person and within-person consistency and judged change in weekly pain between these 2 methods of assessing pain. METHODS: A total of 70 adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis completed both weekly recalled and momentary reports of pain over a 2-week period and assessed their change in pain over the 2-week period using a 5-point global change in pain scale. The Pearson correlations and intraclass correlation coefficients were computed to demonstrate 3 different ways of comparing the measures on both between-person and within-person basis. RESULTS: Momentary ratings of pain episodes were consistently greater than weekly ratings of recalled pain. Moderate to strong consistency and agreement correlations were computed for between-person momentary and recalled pain intensity. However, these correlations were much weaker when the within-person data were analyzed. The judged change in pain across weeks was significantly associated with computed change in both average momentary and recalled pain. DISCUSSION: This is one of the few studies to explore the relationship between the measurement methods of pain recall and momentary assessment in adolescents. The poor within-person correlations observed have important implications for research design and practice in pediatric pain.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".