Development and Validation of the Parent Satisfaction Scale for Child Life Services (PSS-CLS): A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child Life Services play an important role in supporting the emotional and psychosocial needs of hospitalized children and their families. However, currently there is no validated tool to measure parental satisfaction with CLS. This study describes the development and validation of a Parent Satisfaction with Child Life Services Scale (PSS-CLS). An initial pool of 31 items was created based on the experience of child life specialists. A panel of five experts reviewed each of these items for their clarity and relevance. Content validity indices (CVI) were calculated and repetitive items were revised. The resultant 24-item scale was pilot tested with a sample of 60 parents in an Indian private hospital. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and validity was assessed using face validity and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Expert ratings deemed a strong content validity (I-CVI = 0.80-1.00; S-CVI/Ave= 0.974; S-CVI/UA= 0.871). The scale also showed very high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α= 0.949). Face validity was supported by parental reports that the items were clear and required no modifications. EFA gave a five-factor structure that explained 70.1% of total variance. The resultant factors represented major domains of CLS: (1) parental empowerment, support, and confidence in medical care (2) emotional health and advocacy of children (3) counselling effectiveness and communication (4) engaging and individualized therapies, and (5) play-based therapies and the restoration of normalcy. The PSS-CLS is a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating the parental satisfaction with CLS.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".