The Pain Coping Questionnaire short-form: preliminary reliability and validity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Pain Coping Questionnaire (PCQ) has support for its validity and reliability as a tool to understand how a child copes with pain of an extended duration. However, measure length may limit feasibility in clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: The primary goal of this study was to develop a short-form (PCQ-SF) that could be used for screening how children cope with chronic or recurrent pain and examine its reliability and validity. METHODS: The PCQ-SF was developed in a stepwise manner. First, a confirmatory factor analysis was computed using an amalgamated data set from the validation studies of the PCQ (N = 1225). Next, ratings from researchers and clinicians were obtained on PCQ item content and clarity (n = 12). Finally, the resulting 16-item short-form was tested in a pediatric sample living with chronic and recurrent pain (65 parent-child dyads; n = 128). RESULTS: The PCQ-SF has acceptable preliminary reliability and validity. Both statistical and expert analyses support the collective use of the 16 items as an alternative to the full measure. CONCLUSIONS: The compact format of the PCQ-SF will allow practitioners in high-volume clinical environments to quickly determine a child's areas of strengths and weaknesses when coping with pain. Future research using larger more diverse samples to confirm clinical validity is warranted.
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 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 | 0.029 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it