Dyadic analysis of child and parent trait and state pain catastrophizing in the process of children's pain communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When explored separately, child and parent catastrophic thoughts about child pain show robust negative relations with child pain. The objective of this study was to conduct a dyadic analysis to elucidate intrapersonal and interpersonal influences of child and parent pain catastrophizing on aspects of pain communication, including observed behaviours and perceptions of child pain. A community sample of 171 dyads including children aged 8 to 12 years (89 girls) and parents (135 mothers) rated pain catastrophizing (trait and state versions) and child pain intensity and unpleasantness following a cold pressor task. Child pain tolerance was also assessed. Parent-child interactions during the cold pressor task were coded for parent attending, nonattending, and other talk, and child symptom complaints and other talk. Data were analyzed using the actor-partner interdependence model and hierarchical multiple regressions. Children reporting higher state pain catastrophizing had greater symptom complaints regardless of level of parent state pain catastrophizing. Children reporting low state pain catastrophizing had similar high levels of symptom complaints, but only when parents reported high state pain catastrophizing. Higher child and parent state and/or trait pain catastrophizing predicted their own ratings of higher child pain intensity and unpleasantness, with child state pain catastrophizing additionally predicting parent ratings. Higher pain tolerance was predicted by older child age and lower child state pain catastrophizing. These newly identified interpersonal effects highlight the relevance of the social context to children's pain expressions and parent perceptions of child pain. Both child and parent pain catastrophizing warrant consideration when managing child 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 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 | 0.022 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".