A Measure of Caregivers’ Distress-Promoting Behaviors During Toddler Vaccination: Validation of the OUCHIE-RV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study discusses the development and preliminary validation of an observational measure of caregivers' distress-promoting behavior (OUCHIE-RV) in the context of toddler routine vaccination. METHODS: Measure validation was based on a sample of caregiver-toddler dyads (N = 223) from a longitudinal cohort-sequential study who were observed during toddlers' 12-, 18-, or 24-month routine vaccinations. Validity was assessed using correlations and cross-lagged path analysis and associations were tested between OUCHIE-RV composite scores and toddlers' pain-related distress as well as caregivers' state anxiety, soothing behaviors, heart rate, and heart rate variability. Interrater reliability was examined using intraclass correlations (ICC) and kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Results of a cross-lagged path analysis indicated positive concurrent (β = .27 to β = .37) and cross-lagged predictive associations (β = .01 to β = .34) between OUCHIE-RV composite scores (reflecting the frequency and intensity of caregivers' distress-promoting behavior) and toddlers' pain-related distress. OUCHIE-RV composite scores were negatively associated with caregivers' concurrent use of physical comfort (r = -.34 to -.24) and rocking (r = -.36 to -.19) and showed minimal associations with caregivers' use of verbal reassurance (r = .06 to .12), state anxiety (r = -.02 to r = .09), heart rate (r = -.15 to r = .05), and heart rate variability (r = -.04 to r = .13). Interrater reliability was strong (Cohen's k = .86 to .97, ICC = .77 to .85). CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide support for the validity and reliability of the OUCHIE-RV as a research tool for measuring caregiver behaviors that promote toddlers' pain-related distress during routine vaccinations and contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of caregiver-toddler interaction in acute pain contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".