MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Confirmatory factor analysis on the health domains of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire

2008· article· en· W1997433527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abby W. H. Lau, May Chun Mei Wong, Kwok Fai Lam, Colman McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfirmatory factor analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Oral healthGoodness of fitHealth related quality of lifePerceptionStructural equation modelingClinical psychologyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyFamily medicinePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Child Perceptions Questionnaire for children aged 11-14 years (CPQ(11-14)) with 37 items (full questionnaire) and short forms with 16 and 8 items were developed in Toronto as measures of the oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) for children. OBJECTIVES: To confirm the four hypothesized health domains (oral symptoms, functional limitations, emotional well-being and social well-being) of CPQ(11-14) in measuring OHRQoL for children in Hong Kong. METHODS: The instrument was administered to 542 children aged 12 years. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the health domains of the full and short forms of CPQ(11-14). RESULTS: The usual goodness-of-fit measurements indicated that the model using all 37 items fitted the data below the acceptable level, while the models with 16 items and 8 items fitted the data well. CONCLUSION: The hypothesized factor structure with the four health domains of the short forms of CPQ(11-14) has been confirmed by CFA. The results in the current study indicated that the items used in the short forms contain sufficient information in measuring OHRQoL for children in Hong Kong.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunity Dentistry And Oral EpidemiologySame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207