Validity and Reliability of a Questionnaire for Measuring Child Oral-health-related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral-health-related quality of life measures that exist are designed for adults. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the CPQ(11-14), a self-report measure of the impact of oral and oro-facial conditions on 11- to 14-year-old children. An item pool was generated with the use of a literature review and interviews with health professionals, parents, and child patients. The 36 items rated the most frequent and bothersome by 83 children were selected for the CPQ(11-14). Validity testing involved a new sample of 123 children. Test-retest reliability was assessed in a subgroup of these children (n = 65). Mean CPQ(11-14) scores were highest for oro-facial (31.4), lower for orthodontic (24.3), and lowest for pedodontic (23.3) patients. There were significant associations between the CPQ(11-14) score and global ratings of oral health (p < 0.05) and overall well-being (p < 0.01). The Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient for the CPQ(11-14) were 0.91 and 0.90, respectively. These results suggest that the CPQ(11-14) 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 | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".