MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173662547 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsv095

The Sensitivity to Change and Responsiveness of the Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms in Children and Adolescents With Chronic Pain

2015· article· en· W2173662547 on OpenAlexafffund
Mélanie Noël, Nicole M. Alberts, Shelby L. Langer, Rona L. Levy, Lynn S. Walker, Tonya M. Palermo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChronic painIntervention (counseling)PsychologyClinical psychologyRandomized controlled trialCognitionPhysical therapyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the Adult Responses to Children's Symptoms (ARCS) among parents of youth with chronic pain. METHODS: Participants included 330 youth (89 children aged 7-11 years, 241 children aged 12-17 years) and their parents who participated in randomized controlled trials of family-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic pain. Child pain and disability, parental emotional functioning, and parental responses to child pain were assessed at baseline and posttreatment. RESULTS: The Protect and Monitor scales of the ARCS were sensitive to change following intervention for both developmental groups, with clinically meaningful reductions in these behaviors, thereby demonstrating responsiveness. Among the adolescent sample, greater change on some ARCS scales was associated with better parental emotional functioning and lower child pain at posttreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the Protect and Monitor scales among parents of youth with chronic pain.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.301
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

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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