Development and evaluation of the Pain Assessment in the Communicatively Impaired (PACI) tool: part II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain is a common symptom for long-term care residents, particularly those in need of palliative care. However, pain assessment in residents who have communication limitations is challenging. A study was conducted with the aim of developing a pain assessment tool that could feasibly be used by direct care providers in long-term care with minimal training yet demonstrating strong psychometric properties. The study used both qualitative and quantitative methods to develop and test the Pain Assessment in the Communicatively Impaired (PACI) tool. Part I of this paper reported on the development phase; this second part reports on the test results. The validity and reliability results of the PACI tool were acceptable, and the convergent validity was moderately strong. A moderate level of interobserver agreement was evident, with kappas ranging from 0.46 to 0.63 for the individual items and a kappa score of 0.59 for the total tool score. The overall results of this study support the psychometric properties and feasibility of the PACI tool, offering preliminary support for its use in clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".