Agreement between mothers and children aged 11–14 years in rating child oral health‐related quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the agreement between mothers and children concerning the child's oral health-related quality of life. METHODS: A total of 42 pairs of mothers and children aged 11-14 years with oral and orofacial conditions completed the parental (PPQ) and child (CPQ(11-4)) components of the Child Oral Health Quality of Life Questionnaire. The PPQ and CPQ(11-14) are analogous questionnaires with 31 common items. Agreement between overall and subscale scores derived from the questionnaires were assessed in comparison and in correlation analyses. The former used mean directional differences between mothers and children to assess bias and mean absolute differences to assess agreement at the group level. The latter used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess agreement at the level of individual mother-child pairs. RESULTS: At the group level, agreement between mothers and children was good. There was little evidence of bias in mothers' reports compared to those of their children. The mean absolute difference in overall scores constituted 9% of the possible range of scores. However, the significance of this difference is difficult to interpret. The ICC for overall scores was 0.70 indicating substantial agreement between mother and child pairs. However, the ICCs for the emotional and social well-being subscales indicated moderate agreement only. There was a suggestion that the level of agreement varied according to the characteristics of the child. CONCLUSION: Although mothers may be used as proxies for their children in some circumstances and for some purposes, the views of both should be obtained in order to fully represent child oral health-related quality of life.
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 | 0.038 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".