Validity and reliability of the Behavioural Observational Pain Scale for postoperative pain measurement in children 1???7 years of age*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pain measurement is a necessity in pain treatment but can be difficult in young children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Behavioural Observational Pain Scale (BOPS) as a postoperative pain measurement scale for children aged 1-7 yrs. The scale assesses three elements of pain behaviors: facial expression, verbalization, and body position. DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: A day surgery care unit for children and a neurosurgical postoperative care unit. PATIENTS: Seventy-six children aged 1-7 yrs (4.5 +/- 1.8) undergoing elective surgical procedures were observed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study was divided into interrater reliability, concurrent validity, and construct validity. The interrater reliabilities of the observers were very good with a high agreement between the different nurses' BOPS scores. Each item of the BOPS scale ranged from kappa(w) 0.86 to 0.95. In the concurrent validity, BOPS and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale scores had a positive correlation indicating that both tools described similar behaviors (r(s) = .871, p < .001). In construct validity, the effect of analgesic was tested before analgesic administration and at 15, 30, and 60 mins after analgesic administration. The differences in BOPS score between the time intervals were significant (p < .01) before administration of analgesia and at 15, 30, and 60 mins. There was also statistical significance in the BOPS score (p < .01) between 15 and 60 mins after administration of analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: With BOPS, the caretaker can evaluate and document pain with high reliability and validity and thereby improve postoperative pain treatment in preschool children. The simple scoring system makes BOPS easy to incorporate in a postoperative unit.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".