A preliminary report on the Chinese Cancer Pain Assessment Tool (CCPAT): reliability and validity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was to establish the validity and reliability of the Chinese Cancer Pain Assessment Tool (CCPAT) for Chinese patients with cancer pain in Hong Kong. METHODS: It was a quasi-experimental study. The CCPAT was tested for its reliability and validity by 26 cancer pain patients and 26 chronic non-cancer pain patients. McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), with its established reliability and validity, was used as the criterion tool for comparison. RESULTS: An internal consistency of 0.88 and the inter-rater reliability of 0.96 were obtained for the CCPAT. The Spearman's Rho correlations between the functional and emotional dimensions of the CCPAT and the present pain intensity of the MPQ positively correlated. This indicated a satisfactory concurrent validity. Discriminant validity was performed with MANOVA. The CCPAT was able to predict 80.8% of the subjects correctly as cancer pain patient from the cancer pain group. CONCLUSIONS: The constructed CCPAT is a valid and reliable cancer pain assessment tool in a Chinese context. The developed CCPAT is the first of its kind for the Chinese community in Hong Kong. It is anticipated that the results can provide the health care professionals with the best possible instrument and indicator. The CCPAT also lays the theoretical construct for the professionals with a better understanding of the experience of cancer pain from a multidimensional perspective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".