Adult judgments of children’s pain and fear during venipuncture: The impact of adult and child sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low levels of agreement between caregiver and child reports of acute pain are well documented. AIMS: This study builds on prior research through exploring factors that may contribute to low caregiver-child concordance. Specifically, the study examined the influence of adult and child sex on adult judgments of children's pain and fear during venipuncture and examined whether trait parental pain catastrophizing, empathy, and anxiety predicted judgment accuracy. METHODS: Using a judgment study paradigm, 160 participants (82 women) viewed 20 10-s video clips of children (10 boys, 10 girls) undergoing venipuncture and rated each child's pain and fear. Adults' ratings were compared to the children's own ratings. Adults completed measures of trait parental pain catastrophizing, dispositional empathy, and trait anxiety. RESULTS: Adults accurately judged boys' pain and fear significantly more often than that of girls. Further, adults underestimated and overestimated girls' pain and overestimated girls' fear significantly more frequently than that of boys. No effects of adult sex or adult by child sex interactions emerged. Parental pain catastrophizing significantly predicted underestimation of girls' pain, with adults who engaged in more catastrophizing being less likely to underestimate girls' pain. The variables did not predict adult judgment of child pain for women and men separately and did not predict adult judgment of child fear when examined by adult sex, child sex, or both combined. CONCLUSIONS: Child sex influences adult pain and fear judgments, with girls being more vulnerable to inaccurate assessment than boys. Higher levels of parental pain catastrophizing may buffer against adults' propensities to underestimate girls' 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".