Reliability and validity of the Thai translation (Thai PPS Adult Suandok) of the Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: the Thai PPS Adult Suandok tool was translated from the Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2) and had been used in Chiang Mai, Thailand for several years. AIM: to test the reliability and validity of the Thai translation of PPSv2. DESIGN: a set of 22 palliative cases were used to determine a PPS score on Time-1, and repeated two weeks later as Time-2. A survey questionnaire was also completed for qualitative analysis. PARTICIPANTS: a total of 70 nurses and physicians from Maharaj Nakorn Hospital in Chiang Mai participated. RESULTS: The Time-1 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for absolute agreement is 0.911 (95% CI 0.86-0.96) and for consistency is 0.92 (95% CI 0.87-0.96). The Time-2 ICC for agreement is 0.905 (95% CI 0.85-0.95) and for consistency is 0.912 (95% CI 0.86-0.96). These findings indicate good agreement among participants and also were somewhat higher in the Time-2 re-test phase. Cohen's kappa score is 0.55, demonstrating a moderate agreement. Thematic analysis from the surveys showed that 91% felt PPS to be a valuable clinical tool overall, with it being 'very useful' or 'useful' in several areas, including care planning (78% and 20%), disease monitoring (69% and 27%) and prognostication (61% and 31%), respectively. Some respondents noted difficulty in determining appropriate scores in paraplegic patients or those with feeding tubes, while others found the instructions long or difficult. CONCLUSION: the Thai PPS Adult Suandok translated tool has good inter- and intra-rater reliability and can be used regularly for clinical care.
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".