Validity of three rating scales for measuring pain intensity in youths with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence confirming that youths with physical disabilities are at risk for chronic pain. Although many scales for assessing pain intensity exist, it is unclear whether they are all equally suitable for youths. The aim of this study was to address this knowledge gap by comparing the validity of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11), the Wong Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (FACES), and a 6-point categorical Verbal Rating Scale (VRS-6) for assessing pain intensity among youths (aged 8-20) with physical disabilities. METHODS: One hundred and thirteen youths (mean age = 14.19 years; SD = 2.9) were interviewed and asked to rate their current pain intensity and recalled (in the past week) worst, least, and average pain with the NRS-11 and the FACES. Participants were also asked to rate their average pain intensity during the past 4 weeks using a VRS-6, and were administered measures assessing pain interference, disability and psychological functioning. RESULTS: Analyses showed that all of the pain intensity measures were associated positively with each other. Nevertheless, the NRS-11 appeared to out-perform both the VRS-6 and in particular the FACES scale with respect to: (1) the associations with the validity criterion (i.e. pain interference, disability and psychological functioning) and (2) a lack of any moderating effect of age on the association between the measure and the criterion variables. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the validity of the NRS-11 for assessing pain intensity in youths with physical disabilities between the ages of 8 and 20 years.
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 | 0.024 | 0.008 |
| 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 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".