The parents’ postoperative pain measure: replication and extension to 2–6-year-old children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain assessment is a difficult task for parents at home following children's surgery. The purpose of the present study was to confirm the psychometric properties of a behavioural measure of postoperative pain developed to assist parents with pain assessment in children aged 7-12 years following day surgery. The study also examined the reliability and validity of the measure with children aged 2-6 years. Participants were 51 parents of children aged 7-12 years and 107 parents of children aged 2-6 years. For the 2 days following surgery, parents completed a pain diary that included global ratings of their children's pain and the 15-item Parents' Postoperative Pain Measure (PPPM). The older children provided self-reports of their pain intensity. The PPPM items showed good internal consistency on the two postoperative days for both samples (alpha's=0.81-0.88) and scores on the PPPM were highly correlated with children's (for the older children) and parents' (for the young children) global ratings of pain (r's=0.53-0.72). As global pain ratings decreased from Days 1 to 2, so did scores on the PPPM. Scores on the PPPM were successful in discriminating between children who had undergone low/moderate and high pain surgeries. The results of this study provide evidence of the reliability and validity of the PPPM as a measure of postoperative pain among children aged 2 through to 12 years.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".