An item analysis of the COMFORT scale in a pediatric intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct an item analysis of the COMFORT scale within a sample of critically ill children. The COMFORT scale is a tool that measures eight clinical parameters at the bedside to determine a critically ill child's level of distress. However, documentation of the reliability and validity of specific components of this instrument has been limited to date. DESIGN: This was an observational study. SETTING: A tertiary care pediatric intensive care unit. PATIENTS: A sample of 18 intubated, mechanically ventilated patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An item analysis of the COMFORT scale was conducted. The scale was used for variable intervals with each child, providing a total of 514 individual completed ratings. These ratings were then submitted to descriptive, correlational, factor, and regression analyses using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The principal finding of this item analysis was that 97% of the total score variance was explained by six of the eight items. In particular, it was remarkable that heart rate and blood pressure demonstrated very limited reliability and validity as determinants of the total COMFORT score. As well, the clinical experience of the investigators with this scale has demonstrated that these two items can be cumbersome to use, given that these parameters are often affected by hemodynamic factors. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these findings, we propose a modified COMFORT scale based on a six-item scoring system. This modified scale would provide a more reliable and valid measure for research as well as clinical purposes, by eliminating two parameters that can be affected by factors other than the child's level of distress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".