Psychometric evaluation of the Hamilton Inventory to evaluate signs and symptoms in patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a debilitating condition with profound physical and psychological impacts, necessitating comprehensive assessment tools for effective evaluation. PURPOSE: This study aimed to validate the Persian version of the Hamilton Inventory for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (HI-CRPS) and assess its reliability and validity in individuals diagnosed with CRPS. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional clinical measurement study evaluated the Persian version of HI-CRPS. METHODS: A sample of 64 individuals diagnosed with CRPS from pain and hand surgeon clinics completed the Persian versions of the patient-reported (PR-HI-CRPS) and clinicians based (CB-HI-CRPS). Test-retest reliability was assessed after 1 week, and responsiveness was measured after 3 months. Baseline scores, ceiling effects, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and construct validity (correlations with related measures) were examined. Effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated to gauge responsiveness. RESULTS: Baseline scores for PR-HI-CRPS and CB-HI-CRPS were 77.8 and 14.9, respectively. Around 18% of PR-HI-CRPS and 16% of CB-HI-CRPS respondents exhibited ceiling effects. Internal consistency for PR-HI-CRPS (Cronbach's alpha: 0.71-0.91) and CB-HI-CRPS (alpha: 0.90) was satisfactory. PR-HI-CRPS (ICC: 0.86) and CB-HI-CRPS (ICC: 0.97) showed robust test-retest reliability. Construct validity was confirmed by significant correlations between PR-HI-CRPS subscales and related measures (p < 0.01). Structural validity was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. PR-HI-CRPS displayed an effect size of 0.79 and a standardized response mean (SRM) of 0.88. CONCLUSIONS: The Persian version of the HI-CRPS demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. It can be relied upon to assess CRPS symptoms, functional limitations, and psychosocial impacts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".