MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390815867 · doi:10.1080/24740527.2023.2298769

The Sensitivity to Pain Traumatization Scale–Child Version (SPTS-C): Development and preliminary validation

2024· article· en· W4390815867 on OpenAlexafffund
Maria Pavlova, Jaimie K. Beveridge, Sabine Soltani, Larah Maunder, Tim V. Salomons, Joel Katz, Mélanie Noël

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Pain · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalYork UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Children's Hospital Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates
KeywordsChronic painContext (archaeology)Clinical psychologyComorbidityCognitionPsychologyPain catastrophizingPosttraumatic stressMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sensitivity to pain traumatization is defined as the propensity to develop cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to pain that resemble a traumatic stress reaction. To date, sensitivity to pain traumatization has been assessed in adults (Sensitivity to Pain Traumatization Scale [SPTS-12]) and parents of youth with chronic pain (Sensitivity to Pain Traumatization Scale-Parent version [SPTS-P]). SPT may be relevant in the context of pediatric chronic pain given the substantial comorbidity between posttraumatic stress symptoms and pain. Aims: This prospective study aimed to adapt the SPTS-12 for use in youth and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the new scale. Methods: = 14.31 years, 73% girls) referred to outpatient chronic pain programs. At baseline, youth self-reported the levels of their sensitivity to pain traumatization (Sensitivity to Pain Traumatization Scale-Child version [SPTS-C]), as well as their pain symptoms, pain-related anxiety, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and attentional control. Three months later, youth self-reported their pain symptoms and completed the SPTS-C. Results: The SPTS-C had a one-factor structure that explained 48% of variance and demonstrated good reliability and construct validity. SPTS-C baseline scores predicted follow-up levels of pain interference but not pain intensity or pain unpleasantness. Conclusions: The results provide preliminary evidence for the psychometric properties of the SPTS-C and the potential role of SPT in pediatric chronic pain outcomes.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PainSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207