SubjectScout
ENAR
Sign inGet matched
Get matched

Brudvik: pain-measurement evidence

Start questions

AI-assisted English content review; independent teacher approval pending.

Practice scope and review

Original, AI-authored English practice with worked guidance. Selected topics only; independent teacher review is pending. This is not a complete syllabus, official past-paper collection or predicted exam score. Check your own exam-board specification: these concepts are not certified against a particular board or exam year.

192 original questions across 31 selected topic areas. No account or payment required to practise.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990), examination year 2027: AI-assisted conceptual alignment to official sources, not teacher or exam-board certification. Syllabus mapping and remaining coverage.

3 questions in this topic

This is a limited practice preview and is not submitted for search indexing.

All topics

Original written methods, results and evaluation exercises; partial coverage, teacher approval pending. No practical research, clinical advice or complete syllabus claim.

Subtopics in this topic (3)
  • Brudvik: different scales and incomplete masking
  • Brudvik: means, agreement and the physician effect
  • Brudvik: severe according to whom?

3 of 3 questions shown

Loading saved responses

Question 1Brudvik et al. studied 243 children aged 3-15 at Bergen in November 2011. Ages 3-8 used faces scales; ages 9-15 used visual and coloured analogue scales; parents and physicians used numerical ratings. Parents rated before children, without complete mutual masking; neither was to tell the physician their scores. (a) Explain age adaptation. (b) Evaluate comparability and masking. (c) Assess calling this a randomised VAS experiment. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502236/ Resource and read sections: Full primary XML read at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5502236/fullTextXML: Material and method (Design and setting, Data collection, Participants, Measurements, Data analysis and statistics); Results (tables 1-3, Agreement, Pain level, Physicians' administration of pain relief); Discussion (Limitations) and Conclusion. Coverage boundary: Selected cross-sectional measurement evidence only; not all pain measures, diagnostic assessment, treatment advice or a full pain section. The syllabus cites 2016 online publication; the journal issue is 2017. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator

Brudvik et al. studied 243 children aged 3-15 at Bergen in November 2011. Ages 3-8 used faces scales; ages 9-15 used visual and coloured analogue scales; parents and physicians used numerical ratings. Parents rated before children, without complete mutual masking; neither was to tell the physician their scores. (a) Explain age adaptation. (b) Evaluate comparability and masking. (c) Assess calling this a randomised VAS experiment. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502236/ Resource and read sections: Full primary XML read at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5502236/fullTextXML: Material and method (Design and setting, Data collection, Participants, Measurements, Data analysis and statistics); Results (tables 1-3, Agreement, Pain level, Physicians' administration of pain relief); Discussion (Limitations) and Conclusion. Coverage boundary: Selected cross-sectional measurement evidence only; not all pain measures, diagnostic assessment, treatment advice or a full pain section. The syllabus cites 2016 online publication; the journal issue is 2017. Teacher approval pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Brudvik: different scales and incomplete masking: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected cross-sectional measurement evidence only; not all pain measures, diagnostic assessment, treatment advice or a full pain section. The syllabus cites 2016 online publication; the journal issue is 2017. Teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Age-adapted scales make self-report more accessible than imposing the same response format on all children. However, numerical alignment does not guarantee that different formats measure pain in precisely equivalent ways. The paper explicitly recognises scale discrepancies as a limitation. This does not authorise dismissing younger children's reports; it identifies an uncertainty in comparing measurements.
  2. Having parents rate first reduces one simple route for copying the child's completed score, but they were not fully unaware of each other's answers. Their agreement may reflect shared experience and mutual influence as well as accurate proxy assessment. Asking both not to tell the doctor aims to protect a separate physician rating; it is not evidence of complete double blinding or of perfect adherence to that instruction.
  3. This was a cross-sectional survey of existing clinical encounters, not random assignment of a pain manipulation or treatment. The same child provided a context for matched perspectives. Parents and physicians used the same numerical scale yet differed, so different child scale formats cannot by themselves explain every discrepancy. No scale artwork or items are reproduced, and no pain induction, observation of new patients or diagnostic task is proposed.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Explain developmentally appropriate reporting without assuming equivalent scale meaning.
  2. Distinguish parent-child influence from intended physician masking.
  3. Identify cross-sectional matched ratings, not random treatment allocation.
  4. Use parent-physician disagreement on the same scale to qualify a scale-only explanation.

Examiner tip

Identify the actual sample, endpoint, denominator and source section. Distinguish a result from an interpretation and a group average from an individual claim.

Question 2Brudvik et al. report mean ratings of 5.5 for children, 4.8 for parents and 3.2 for physicians. Weighted agreement values were 0.55 for child-parent, 0.12 for child-physician and 0.17 for parent-physician. Fifty-one physicians contributed ratings; the analysis included a physician random intercept. (a) Interpret means versus agreement. (b) Explain why repeated ratings by one physician matter. (c) Bound the inference about whose pain is real. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502236/ Resource and read sections: Full primary XML read at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5502236/fullTextXML: Material and method (Design and setting, Data collection, Participants, Measurements, Data analysis and statistics); Results (tables 1-3, Agreement, Pain level, Physicians' administration of pain relief); Discussion (Limitations) and Conclusion. Coverage boundary: Selected cross-sectional measurement evidence only; not all pain measures, diagnostic assessment, treatment advice or a full pain section. The syllabus cites 2016 online publication; the journal issue is 2017. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator

Brudvik et al. report mean ratings of 5.5 for children, 4.8 for parents and 3.2 for physicians. Weighted agreement values were 0.55 for child-parent, 0.12 for child-physician and 0.17 for parent-physician. Fifty-one physicians contributed ratings; the analysis included a physician random intercept. (a) Interpret means versus agreement. (b) Explain why repeated ratings by one physician matter. (c) Bound the inference about whose pain is real. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502236/ Resource and read sections: Full primary XML read at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5502236/fullTextXML: Material and method (Design and setting, Data collection, Participants, Measurements, Data analysis and statistics); Results (tables 1-3, Agreement, Pain level, Physicians' administration of pain relief); Discussion (Limitations) and Conclusion. Coverage boundary: Selected cross-sectional measurement evidence only; not all pain measures, diagnostic assessment, treatment advice or a full pain section. The syllabus cites 2016 online publication; the journal issue is 2017. Teacher approval pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Brudvik: means, agreement and the physician effect: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected cross-sectional measurement evidence only; not all pain measures, diagnostic assessment, treatment advice or a full pain section. The syllabus cites 2016 online publication; the journal issue is 2017. Teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. Subtracting the displayed group means gives 5.5 - 3.2 = 2.3 points for the child-physician gap. This is an average pattern, not a rule that each doctor rated each child exactly 2.3 lower. Agreement asks whether paired assessments coincide or lie close together, not merely whether average scores are similar. Two sets of scores can share a mean despite substantial mismatches between pairs.
  2. The reported weighted agreement is greater for child-parent than for the other pairs under the paper's analysis. A weighted coefficient is not the percentage of exact matches and should not be rewritten as '55% identical'. The same physician assessed multiple children, making those assessments potentially dependent through a shared rating tendency. A physician random intercept addresses that clustering; it does not automatically remove all bias or every source of dependence.
  3. The finding concerns differences in reported and proxy-estimated pain, not discovery that one group fabricated pain. A subjective experience does not become unreal because an observer rates it differently. Agreement also does not establish a perfect external gold-standard measurement. Retaining individual variation, scale limitations and the cross-sectional setting makes the conclusion more defensible than a universal accusation about children, parents or doctors.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. Calculate the 2.3-point child-physician mean gap without applying it to every child.
  2. Distinguish weighted agreement from a mean and from a correlation claim.
  3. Explain within-physician dependence and the purpose of a random intercept.
  4. Reject treating disagreement as evidence that a child's experience is unreal.

Examiner tip

Identify the actual sample, endpoint, denominator and source section. Distinguish a result from an interpretation and a group average from an individual claim.

Question 3Brudvik et al.'s Results state that 42.1% of the 19 children classified as having severe pain by physicians received analgesics. When severity was based on children's ratings, the figure was 14.3%. Of 395 invited children aged 3-15, 243 participated. (a) Explain why the two percentages are not contradictory. (b) Evaluate selection and generalisation. (c) Explain why this is not a test of a particular analgesic's effectiveness. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502236/ Resource and read sections: Full primary XML read at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5502236/fullTextXML: Material and method (Design and setting, Data collection, Participants, Measurements, Data analysis and statistics); Results (tables 1-3, Agreement, Pain level, Physicians' administration of pain relief); Discussion (Limitations) and Conclusion. Coverage boundary: Selected cross-sectional measurement evidence only; not all pain measures, diagnostic assessment, treatment advice or a full pain section. The syllabus cites 2016 online publication; the journal issue is 2017. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Explain / Evaluate4 indicative marksNo calculator

Brudvik et al.'s Results state that 42.1% of the 19 children classified as having severe pain by physicians received analgesics. When severity was based on children's ratings, the figure was 14.3%. Of 395 invited children aged 3-15, 243 participated. (a) Explain why the two percentages are not contradictory. (b) Evaluate selection and generalisation. (c) Explain why this is not a test of a particular analgesic's effectiveness. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502236/ Resource and read sections: Full primary XML read at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5502236/fullTextXML: Material and method (Design and setting, Data collection, Participants, Measurements, Data analysis and statistics); Results (tables 1-3, Agreement, Pain level, Physicians' administration of pain relief); Discussion (Limitations) and Conclusion. Coverage boundary: Selected cross-sectional measurement evidence only; not all pain measures, diagnostic assessment, treatment advice or a full pain section. The syllabus cites 2016 online publication; the journal issue is 2017. Teacher approval pending.

Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match

Brudvik: severe according to whom?: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected cross-sectional measurement evidence only; not all pain measures, diagnostic assessment, treatment advice or a full pain section. The syllabus cites 2016 online publication; the journal issue is 2017. Teacher approval pending.

AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.

Show indicative guidance

Worked guidance

  1. The percentages use different definitions of membership in the severe-pain group. The 42.1% relates to 19 physician-classified severe cases; the 14.3% relates to severity defined by the child's assessment. A lower rating by physicians can change who enters that category. The first proportion must not be presented as covering all severe child self-reports. Neither percentage is the overall proportion of the 243 children receiving medication.
  2. The difference between 395 invited and 243 participants is 152 nonparticipants. Actual clinical encounters provide useful ecological relevance, but participation was incomplete and the collection window was only 17 days at one centre. Follow-up visits were excluded, and age restrictions served matched self-report/proxy comparisons. Those choices limit transfer to all ages, countries and emergency services; a reasonable sample size alone cannot demonstrate representativeness.
  3. Receiving pain relief was recorded in an observational design, not assigned as a controlled comparison between medicines. Severity, diagnosis and other clinical factors may influence administration, so the association does not estimate a particular drug's causal benefit or safety. The study motivates a measurement and service-evaluation question. It supplies neither personal treatment recommendations nor a reason to induce pain, withhold care or recruit children for a replication.

Self-marking points

View marking points
  1. State that the severity denominator depends on whose assessment defines it.
  2. Do not apply 42.1% to all child-rated severe cases or all 243 children.
  3. Identify 152 nonparticipants and one-site, short-window selection limits.
  4. Separate administration associations from randomised drug efficacy.

Examiner tip

Identify the actual sample, endpoint, denominator and source section. Distinguish a result from an interpretation and a group average from an individual claim.

All AS & A Level subjects