MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123887932 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsq034

Development and Preliminary Validation of the Child Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale in a Community Sample

2010· article· en· W2123887932 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Gabrielle Pagé, Samantha Fuss, Andrea Martín‐Nalda, E. Manolo Romero Escobar, Joel Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCronbach's alphaAnxietyPsychologyExploratory factor analysisDiscriminant validityConfirmatory factor analysisClinical psychologyConstruct validityPsychometricsScale (ratio)Reliability (semiconductor)Concurrent validityPsychiatryInternal consistencyStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop, and provide initial validation of, a 20-item Child Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (CPASS), a modified version of the adult 20-item Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale. METHODS: A community sample of children and adolescents (N = 959) aged 8-18 years completed the CPASS and measures of pain catastrophizing, anxiety sensitivity, and general anxiety. Factor structure was assessed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA). RESULTS: EFA yielded a one- and a three-factor solution using 17 items of the CPASS. CFA supported a hierarchical model for both a 20-item four-factor solution (based on the adult literature) and a 20-item slightly modified four-factor solution. The CPASS showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .903) and good construct, discriminant, and concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the relevance of pain anxiety in a community sample of children and adolescents and offers preliminary validity and reliability for the CPASS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207