Is the Child Oral Health Quality of Life Questionnaire Sensitive to Change in the Context of Orthodontic Treatment? A Brief Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the ability of the Child Oral Health Quality of Life Questionnaire (COHQoL) to detect change following provision of orthodontic treatment. METHODS: Children were recruited from an orthodontic clinic just prior to starting orthodontic treatment. They completed a copy of the Child Perception Questionnaire, while their parents completed a copy of the Parents Perception Questionnaire and the Family Impact Scale. Normative outcomes were assessed using the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) and the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Change scores and effect sizes were calculated for all scales. RESULTS: Complete data were collected for 45 children and 26 parents. The mean age was 12.6 years (standard deviation = 1.4). There were significant pre-/posttreatment changes in DAI and PAR scores and significant changes in scores on all three questionnaires (P < 0.05). Effect sizes for the latter were moderate. Global transition judgments also confirmed pre-/posttreatment improvements in oral health and wellbeing. CONCLUSION: The results provide preliminary evidence of the sensitivity to change of the COHQoL questionnaires when used with children receiving orthodontic treatment. However, the study needs to be repeated in different treatment settings and with a larger sample size in order to confirm the utility of the measure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".