Questionnaire for measuring oral health-related quality of life in eight- to ten-year-old children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study measured oral health-related quality of life for children, which involved the construction of child perceptions questionnaires (CPQs) for ages 6 to 7, 8 to 10, and 11 to 14. The purpose of this study was to present the development and evaluation of the CPQ for 8- to 10-year-olds (CPQ8-10). METHODS: Questions (N=25) were selected from the CPQ for 11- to 14-year-olds based on the child development literature and input from parents, child psychologist, and teacher of grades 3 and 4. Validity and reliability were evaluated on 68 and 33 children, respectively. RESULTS: There was a positive moderate correlation between the CPQ8-10 score and overall well-being rating (R=.45). The level of impact was slightly higher in the orofacial than in the pediatric dentistry group (mean score=19.1 vs 18.4, respectively). Hypotheses concerning the relationship between the CPQ8-10 score and number of decayed surfaces were confirmed with R=.29, and the mean score higher in caries-afflicted than caries-free children (21.1 vs 14.7). The Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.89 and 0.75, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest good construct validity, internal consistency, reliability and test-retest reliability, but do not demonstrate discriminative validity. This is consistent, however, with theoretical models of oral disease and its consequences. Further research is required, as these are preliminary findings based on convenience sampling.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".