Preliminary validation of an observational checklist for persons with cognitive impairments and inability to communicate verbally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To obtain a preliminary validation of the Non-Communicating Children's Pain Checklist for individuals with an inability to communicate verbally, 32 caregivers of individuals with cognitive impairments aged 3 to 44 years retrospectively completed the Non-Communicating Children's Pain Checklist and rated item usefulness (0 to 10). In the second part of the study 33 caregivers completed the Checklist after two painful (e.g. burns, falls, surgery), one distressful (e.g. unwanted grooming, feared animal/noise), and one calm event (e.g. watching television). Checklist scores did not correlate with the age, sex, or physical limitations of individuals with an inability to communicate verbally. In the first part of the study Cronbach's alpha was 0.66; all mean usefulness ratings exceeded 5 out of 10. In the second part of the study after four items were removed, Cronbach's alpha was 0.79. Checklist scores during pain correlated with numerical ratings of pain intensity did not differ between the two pain events, and differed significantly from calm scores. Differences in Checklist scores during pain and distress were found for two subscales. The Checklist exhibits internal consistency, and preliminary evidence suggests it can detect pain and is reliable over time.
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".