Reliability and validity of a thai version of the edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS – Thai)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".