Multilevel analysis of couple congruence on pain, interference, and disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Couple congruence on ratings of pain severity and disability were examined using hierarchical linear modeling. Older community Individuals with Chronic Pain (ICPs) and their spouses completed the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (pain severity, interference, negative spouse responses to pain), Sickness Impact Profile (physical disability, psychosocial disability), and the Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (psychological distress). Both spouses reported on ICPs' pain and disability as well as their own psychological distress. Spousal incongruence was observed on interference and physical disability such that ICPs reported greater disability than their spouses reported for them. No significant incongruence was observed in pain severity or psychosocial disability. Predictors of couples' mean ratings of pain and disability were identified. Specifically, couples in which the ICP was female reported higher couples' ratings of pain severity and interference. ICP distress was related to higher couples' ratings of all pain and disability variables whereas spouse distress was related to higher psychosocial disability ratings. ICPs' perceptions of negative spouse responses were also positively associated with couples' ratings of physical and psychosocial disability. In terms of congruence, ICP distress was associated with incongruence on interference, physical disability, and psychosocial disability whereas spouse distress predicted incongruence on pain severity, and interference. This study suggests that understanding couples' pain outcome ratings involves an awareness of factors that might influence their perceptions and behaviors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".