Epidemiological evaluation of short‐form versions of the Child Perception Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to compare the performance of four short-form versions of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ(11-14)) with that of the long-form version in a random population sample of 12- and 13-yr-old children from New Zealand in order to determine which short-form version was the most valid. Children (n = 430, participation rate 74.1%) completed the 37-item CPQ(11-14). Two separate 8- and 16-item short-form versions were previously developed using (a) item impact and (b) regression methods. The four different short-form scales were compared with the full CPQ(11-14) on their construct validity. The children were examined for malocclusion (using the Dental Aesthetic Index) and for dental caries by a single examiner (L.F.P.). All short-form versions revealed substantial variability in overall oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.73 (Regression Short Form [RSF]-8) to 0.86 (RSF-16). For all short-form versions, mean scores were positively associated with self-rated oral health and overall wellbeing; associations with the latter were stronger. All short-form versions detected OHRQoL gradients, as hypothesized, across ascending categories of caries and malocclusion. These findings suggest that the short-form versions of the CPQ(11-14) all show acceptable properties, but that the 16-item versions perform better (and are essentially equivalent); however, the stronger theoretical underpinning of the item-impact-derived 16-item short-form version suggests that it shows the most promise.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".