The psychometric assessment of the older adult in pain: A systematic review of assessment instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review of pain assessment tools suitable for community-dwelling older adults. For this work, we conceptualized existing psychometric tools as falling under the following domains: a) pain intensity/characteristics; b) pain-related interference/disability; c) coping strategies; d) pain beliefs/attitudes/cognitions; e) pain-related fear and anxiety; and f) pain-specific emotional distress. Multi-dimensional and condition-specific tools were also considered. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures guided the evaluation of measurement properties, quality of evidence ratings, and recommendations for each measure. A search of Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, yielded a total of 21,755 records. Of these, 120 studies, focusing on 57 psychometric tools, were included in this review and categorized into the aforementioned pain assessment domains. The availability of psychometric studies with older adult populations was insufficient for most tools and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to high. Only a small number of tools met the criteria for a strong or tentative recommendation favoring their use. We identified gaps that should be addressed in future research. • Pain assessment tools were classified into domains (e.g., intensity, coping). • Quality of evidence and measurement properties vary across assessment domains. • Only few tools have undergone adequate psychometric evaluation with older adults. • Tools assessing pain intensity had the strongest psychometric support. • More research is needed in this area.
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 | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".