Measuring Parental Perceptions of Child Oral Health‐related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the P-CPQ, a measure of parental/caregiver perceptions of the oral health-related quality of life of children. This forms one component of the Child Oral Health Quality of Life Questionnaire (COHQOL). METHODS: An item pool was developed through a review of existing child health questionnaires and interviews with parents/caregivers of children with pedodontic, orthodontic, and orofacial conditions. The resulting 47 items were used in a study in which 208 parents/caregivers provided data on their frequency and importance. The 31 items rated the most frequent and important were selected for the final questionnaire (P-CPQ). The P-CPQ validity and reliability were assessed by a new sample of 231 parents, 79 of whom completed two copies for the assessment of test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The P-CPQ discriminated among the three clinical groups included in the expected direction. Within-group analyses using clinical data provided some evidence that scores were associated with the severity of the condition. The P-CPQ also showed good construct validity. It had excellent internal consistency reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.94 and demonstrated perfect test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85). CONCLUSION: The study provides data to indicate that the P-CPQ is valid and reliable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".