MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014171300 · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-43

Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ11–14) – short forms

2009· article· en· W2014171300 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsConstruct validityMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)MalocclusionReliability (semiconductor)Oral healthDiscriminant validityBrazilian PortuguesePopulationPsychometricsPhysical therapyClinical psychologyInternal consistencyPsychologyDentistryPortugueseEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The need to evaluate the impact of oral health has led to the development of instruments for measuring oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL). One such instrument is the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ(11-14)), developed specifically for 11-to-14-year-old children. As this questionnaire was considered long (37 items), shorter forms were developed with 8 (Impact Short Form: 8--ISF:8) and 16 items (Impact Short Form: 16--ISF:16) to facilitate use in the clinical setting and population-based health surveys. The aim of the present study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt these CPQ(11-14) short forms for Brazilian Portuguese and evaluate the measurement properties of these versions for use on Brazilian children. METHODS: Following translation and cross-cultural adaptation, the ISF:8 and ISF:16 were tested on 136 children from 11 to 14 years of age in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The instrument was administered by a trained researcher who also performed clinical examinations. The measurement properties (i.e. criterion validity, construct validity, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability) were determined. Discriminant validity was tested between groups, which were divided into children with no cavities and no malocclusion; children with cavities and without malocclusion; and children with malocclusion and without cavities. RESULTS: The mean total score was 6.8 [standard deviation (SD) 4.2] for the ISF:8 and 11.9 (SD 7.6) for the ISF:16 (p < 0.001). Statistically significant associations were found between oral abnormalities and the subscales of the ISF:8 and ISF:16 (p < 0.05). Both test-retest stability and internal consistency, as measured by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (ISF:8 = 0.98 and ISF:16 = 0.97) and Cronbach's alpha (ISF:8 = 0.70 and ISF:16 = 0.84) proved to be adequate. Construct validity was confirmed from the correlation between the short form scores and oral health and overall well-being ratings. The score on the short forms of the CPQ(11-14) was able to discriminate between different oral conditions. Criterion validity was satisfactory (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The Brazilian versions of CPQ(11-14) ISF:8 and ISF:16 have satisfactory psychometric properties, similar to those of the original instrument.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.315 · 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