ArticleSage open pediatrics
Development and Content Validation of the ACFP-DP: A Questionnaire on Parental Attitudes, Beliefs, and Knowledge About Pediatric Pain.
Article in Sage open pediatrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ACFP-DP was developed to assess parental attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about pediatric pain. In this methodological cross-sectional study, an initial item pool was appraised by 7 of 20 invited experts and pilot-tested in 41 parents and guardians of hospitalized children. Experts rated clarity, pertinence, and relevance; I-CVI, S-CVI/Ave, and modified kappa coefficients were calculated. Mean I-CVI was 0.89 (range, 0.71-1.00), S-CVI/Ave values were 0.878 for clarity, 0.905 for pertinence, and 0.899 for relevance, and modified kappa ranged from 0.66 to 1.00. Overall self-reported comprehensibility was 94.9%. These findings provide preliminary evidence of content validity and high pilot comprehensibility, but not full psychometric validation. Further studies should assess reliability, structural validity, construct validity, and score interpretation before broader use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.