BRAZILIAN VERSION OF THE TORONTO PAIN MANAGEMENT INVENTORY - ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to perform the cross-cultural adaptation of the Toronto Pain Management Inventory - Acute Coronary Syndrome instrument into Brazilian Portuguese and test face validity evidence of the adapted instrument. Methods:we followed the procedures proposed by the Guideline for Establishing Cultural Equivalency of Instruments (RDC/TMD) Consortium Network (phase 1) for cross-cultural adaptation. To measure agreement between the judges in the equivalences analysis, we used the content validity index (CVI). Face validity was performed with nurses during the pre-test and consisted of assessing the easeof understanding when answering the items. Results: the adapted instrument achieved linguistic equivalence. The semantic, idiomatic, experimental and conceptual equivalences had a mean CVI of 98.5 (95% CI 97.1-100.0), 97.8 (95% CI 96.0-99.5), 94.1 (95 % 91.6-96.6) and 99.6 (95% CI 98.9-100.0). In the pre-test, 92.5% of nurses considered the instrument easy to understand and 85% found no difficulty. Conclusion: the adapted instrument is culturally equivalent to the original instrument and shows evidence of face validity. The psychometric properties of the instrument are yet to be investigated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".