The factor structure and factorial invariance of the Pain‐Coping Questionnaire across age: Evidence from community‐based samples of children and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Pain-Coping Questionnaire was developed for children to assess pain-coping strategies. It was originally suggested as a second-order factor measure: eight first-order factors and three higher-order factors. The main objective of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the PCQ when used with children and adults. Two samples of 702 children and 590 adults completed the measure. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures were used to examine the factor structure, and invariance across samples. The results provided good support for a second-order structural model of seven subscales for children, for a first-order structural model of seven subscales for adults, and for between-group invariance first-order structural model. These findings suggest that data obtained on the seven first-order factors from children are directly comparable to scores from adults. The internal consistency, criterion validity and convergent validity were also confirmed in both children and adult samples. This work also reports some preliminary findings related to sex and age differences on the use of pain-coping styles.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".