MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability and validity of a thai version of the edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS – Thai)

2012· article· en· W2055419181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Montharat Chinda, Darin Jaturapatporn, Albert J. Kirshen, Umaporn Udomsubpayakul

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Supportive & Palliative Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFace validityReliability (semiconductor)Palliative careFamily medicineValidityRating scalePhysical therapyNursingPsychometricsClinical psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), created by the Edmonton Group in 1991, is an instrument assessing symptom control commonly used in palliative care. It asks patients to rate nine items on an eleven-point numeric rating scales. Objective The aim of this study was to translate the ESAS to Thai and validate its final version with transcultural adaptation for Thai palliative care patients. The original ESAS was translated into Thai with the Edmonton group`s permission. The translation process followed the cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures` standard guidelines, including forward translation, synthesis of the translation, back translation, cross-cultural adaptation and pre-testing. Methods This cross-sectional study was first undertaken with 44 end-stage cancer patients in the inpatient setting, which led to the final version. The reliability and validity of the final version, with a sample of 37 end-stage cancer patients, was then examined in the out-patient department at Ramathibodi hospital. The face validity was evaluated through patient interviews, using guide questions. The internal-consistency reliability was calculated by using SPSS program. Results 91.8% of patients declared that the ESAS-Thai questionnaire was generally clear. It yielded a Cronbach's α of 0.7458 in the inpatient setting. After modifying the words ‘appetite’ and ‘well-being,’ 37 cancer patients, who were cared for by the Departments of Medicine, Surgery, Gynaecology and Otolaryngology, self-administered the questionnaire in the out-patient department. The mean age was 52.2 (10.8) with a 0.8904 Cronbach's α in the validation sample. Conclusion After the translation and cross-cultural adaptation, the Thai version of the ESAS achieved good levels of face validity and internal-consistency reliability. It is now available as a patient-administered instrument to evaluate symptoms among palliative care patients in Thailand.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Supportive & Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207