Individual and Relational Correlates of Pain-related Empathic Accuracy in Spouses of Chronic Pain Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate correlates of pain-related empathic accuracy in spouses of chronic pain patients. Specifically, analyses addressed: (1) the correlates of pain-related empathic accuracy, (2) the relation between pain-related empathic accuracy, and patient and spouse adaptational outcomes, and (3) the relation between pain-related empathic accuracy and relational outcomes. METHODS: Fifty-eight chronic pain patients (28 women and 30 men) were filmed while participating in a simulated occupational lifting task. Patients were asked to report their level of pain while lifting canisters partially filled with sand. Spouses were later asked to view the video record of their partner's performance and to estimate their partner's level of pain. Empathic accuracy was defined in terms of the overall discrepancy between patients' pain ratings and spouses' pain estimates, and by the degree of covariation between patients' pain ratings and spouses' pain estimates across trials. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that patients' pain severity, catastrophizing, fear of pain, and level of disability were significant correlates of empathic accuracy. Higher levels of pain-related empathic accuracy were associated to negative adaptational outcomes for chronic pain patients. With regard to the spouse, empathic accuracy was associated with the spouses' perceiving that they express less punitive responses when the patient is in pain. Empathic accuracy was not significantly related to relational outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that empathic accuracy is associated with negative outcomes for the patient, and might not be an important correlate of marital satisfaction in couples in which one of the partners is suffering from chronic pain.
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 | 0.016 | 0.054 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".