Item selection and content validity of the Critical‐Care Pain Observation Tool for non‐verbal adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of the item selection process and evaluation of the content validity of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool for non-verbal critically ill adults. BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients experience moderate to severe pain in the intensive care unit. While critical care clinicians strive to obtain the patient's self-report of pain, many factors compromise the patient's ability to communicate verbally. Pain assessment methods often need to match the communication capabilities of the patient. In non-verbal patients, observable behavioural and physiological indicators become important indices for pain assessment. METHOD: A mixed method study design was used for the development of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool in 2002-2003. More specifically, a four-step process was undertaken: (1) literature review, (2) review of 52 patients' medical files, (3) focus groups with 48 critical care nurses, and interviews with 12 physicians, and (4) evaluation of content validity with 17 clinicians using a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Item selection was derived from different sources of information which were convergent and complementary in their content. An initial version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool was developed including both behavioural and physiological indicators. Because physiological indicators received more criticism than support, only the four behaviours with content validity indices >0.80 were included in the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool: facial expression, body movements, muscle tension and compliance with the ventilator. CONCLUSION: Item selection and expert opinions are relevant aspects of tool development. While further evaluation is planned, the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool appears as a useful instrument to assess pain in critically ill patients.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it