Cited by 111Pediatric Pain Management TechniquesMusic Therapy and HealthChild and Adolescent Health

The Child–Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale-Short Form (CAMPIS-SF)

Open access
Blount, Ronald L, Bunke, Vicki, Cohen, Lindsey L, Forbes, Cally J·2001·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

This study evaluated the concurrent and construct validity of the Child-Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale-Short Form (CAMPIS-SF), a behavior rating scale of children's acute procedural distress and coping, and the coping promoting behaviors and distress promoting behaviors of their parents and the medical personnel who were present in the medical treatment room. Sixty preschool children undergoing immunizations at a county health department served as subjects. Videotapes of the procedures were scored using three observational measures in addition to the CAMPIS-SF. Also, parent, nurse, and child report measures of child distress, fear, pain, and cooperation were obtained. Results indicated that the validity of the CAMPIS-SF codes of Child Coping, Child Distress, Parent Coping Promoting, Parent Distress Promoting, Nurse Coping Promoting, and Nurse Distress Promoting behaviors was supported by multiple significant correlations with the other measures. The interrater reliability of the 5-point CAMPIS-SF scales was good to excellent. The results emphasize that the CAMPIS-SF scales can be used to monitor not only children's acute procedural distress, but also their coping and the various adults' behaviors that significantly influence children's distress. Further, because of the CAMPIS-SF's ease of use, it is likely that the study of the effects of the social environment on children's distress and coping will be facilitated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0885-3924(01)00303-7

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blount, R. L., Bunke, V., Cohen, L. L., & Forbes, C. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Blount, Ronald L
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-07
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
591-599
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W177879631
Cited by
111
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Music Therapy and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
Keywords
procedural distress, coping styles, preschool children, immunization, parental behavior, nurse behavior, behavior rating scales, concurrent validity, construct validity, inter-rater reliability, children's fears, pain, cooperation, social environment
MeSH terms
Adult, Behavior, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Injections, Intramuscular, Male, Nurse-Patient Relations, Nurses, Pain, Parent-Child Relations, Parents, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review