Ability of 3- to 5-year-old children to use simplified self-report measures of pain intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about self-report pain intensity scales best suited for young children. We tested the ability of preschool children to use two simplified scales (concrete ordinal and faces). Three- to 5-year-olds ( n = 123) were asked to make binary discriminations (‘less’ vs ‘more’ pain) between response options using the Simplified Faces Pain Scale and Simplified Concrete Ordinal Scale and to complete a seriation task. Eighty participants were also asked to use the Simplified Concrete Ordinal Scale, with modified verbal anchors, to rate the loudness of tones and to assess practice effects. Binary discrimination accuracy and seriation ability improved with age. When using the Simplified Concrete Ordinal Scale to rate the loudness of tones, even the 3-year-olds performed significantly better than chance, and performance was better in 4- and 5-year-olds. Little evidence supported the ability of 3-year-olds to use either of the simplified tools in the pain context. The 4-year-olds demonstrated greater accuracy in using the Simplified Concrete Ordinal Scale than the Simplified Faces Pain Scale, suggesting that the Simplified Concrete Ordinal Scale may be more appropriate for this age group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".