Testing responsiveness to change for the early childhood oral health impact scale (ECOHIS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS) is a recently developed oral health-related quality of life instrument designed to assess the impact of oral health problems in 0-5-year-old children. It has previously been validated as discriminative instrument. The goal of this study was to investigate the responsiveness to change of the ECOHIS. METHODS: Data were collected from a convenience sample of 101 parents of 0-5-year-old children attending a hospital dental clinic for dental treatment. The ECOHIS was completed by parents prior to dental treatment and 2 weeks later. Subjects were also asked a global transition judgement concerning change between the second and first completion of the ECOHIS instrument. Responsiveness to change of the ECOHIS was analysed through: (i) a comparison of ECOHIS change scores with a global transition judgment by study subjects; (ii) an assessment of the statistical significance of within-group change in scores over time for groups reporting improvement, stability and deterioration; (iii) an estimation of the ECOHIS's sensitivity; and (iv) an investigation the effect size of the ECOHIS. RESULTS: Of the 101 subjects recruited, 94 had full datasets. Their data were used for the analyses reported in this paper. Pre- and post-treatment distributions of ECOHIS scores were strongly distributed towards no oral health impacts. Among the 94 subjects, 51.1% reported improvement, 42.6% reported no change and 6.4% reported deterioration following treatment, using the global transition judgement. The mean ECOHIS change scores for these three groups were -0/9, +0.7 and +6.5 respectively, although none of the within-group changes were statistically significant. The effect size for those reporting improvement was small (0.15) but for those reporting deterioration was moderate-to-large (0.69). Sensitivity ranged from 0.61-0.79 depending on the size of the cut-off point, with a change of 3 points demonstrating the best sensitivity to false positive ratio (0.79 versus 0.41 respectively). CONCLUSION: In this sample with low levels of problems, the ECOHIS has demonstrated some limited ability to respond to change. Further work in a larger sample with higher levels of problems is needed to investigate the instrument's ability to respond to change when it has occurred.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".