MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936645582 · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12371

Development and validation of the Treatment Expectations in Chronic Pain Scale

2019· article· en· W2936645582 on OpenAlex
M. Gabrielle Pagé, Daniel Ziemiański, Marc O. Martel, Yoram Shir

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Health Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Discriminant validityConstruct validityCronbach's alphaChronic painGuttman scaleCriterion validityPsychometricsPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Treatment Expectations in Chronic Pain (TEC) scale, a brief measure of treatment expectations of chronic non‐cancer pain treatment. Design A cross‐sectional study design was used. Methods After conducting a literature review and expert discussions, a preliminary version of the TEC scale was developed. Cognitive interviews with 10 clinicians and 14 patients were conducted to examine the scale's face validity and item wording. Last, two hundred and five patients on the waitlist for a multidisciplinary pain treatment centre completed a battery of self‐report questionnaires to examine the TEC scale's reliability and construct validity. Mokken scale analysis was conducted to select the final items. Reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Guttman's lambda 2 ) and construct validity (Pearson correlations) were assessed. Results The final scale was composed of nine items that each measured ideal and predicted expectations about process and outcome of treatment. Mokken scale analysis showed the presence of two subscales: ideal and predicted expectations. The TEC scale had good internal consistency ( α = 0.876–0.869) and adequate discriminant validity as assessed by its low correlation with measures of depression, anxiety, and quality of life ( r = −.038 to .114). The scale had however low correlation with a theoretically related measure of optimism ( r = .240). Conclusion The TEC scale is a reliable scale measuring pain treatment expectation. Further evaluation of its psychometric properties is needed. The scale has the potential to deepen our understanding of the role treatment expectations play in chronic non‐cancer pain treatment response. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Expectations play a role in pain perception and the response to pain treatment Patients' expectations about pain and its management are associated with treatment satisfaction The absence of a validated tool to measure treatment expectations in chronic non‐cancer pain prevents further exploration and understanding of the role of expectations in the context of multidisciplinary pain treatment . What does this study add? A new, reliable 9‐item scale measuring treatment expectations among chronic non‐cancer pain patients attending specialized multidisciplinary pain clinics .

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.334 · 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