La escala de dolor BS-21: datos preliminares sobre su fiabilidad y validez para evaluar la intensidad del dolor en geriatría
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aims of this study were: 1) to determine the main psy-chometric properties of the BS-21 in a sample of Spanish hospitalised elderly patients, and 2) to compare the grade of preference of the BS-21 in relation to another pain intensity rating scale widely used in older adults, the PPI of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Methods: The relative rate of incorrect responses, intraclass reliability, convergent validity, construct validity and grade of preference for each scale were evaluated. 112 older adults (mean age 76.9 years) with chronic pain, living in long term care facilities, participated in this study. Patients assessed current pain intensity with the BS-21 and the PPI twice a day for a period of seven consecutive days. In the afternoon, they also made a retrospective daily and weekly ratings of the worse, least and usual pain level. Results: Our results indicate that the BS-21 has a better intraclass reliability and construct validity, when compared to the BS-21. Moreover factor loading of the "pain intensity" construct, as well as the correlation between retrospective and actual pain ratings of pain are higher for the BS-21. On the other hand, the correlation between the scales is significant, suggesting a good convergent validity valué. The results in this study also show that the rate of incorrect responding was higher with the BS-21 (p<0.0001). The BS-21 is the less preferred scale by the participating patients (p<0.0001). Conclusions: The BS-21 seems to be a valid and reliable scale to measure the intensity of pain in Spanish speaking elderly individuáis, even with those with low or modérate cognitive impairment. However, more studies are needed to recommend the systematic use of the BS-21 in clinic 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 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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".