Validation of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ <sub>11-14</sub> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the use of adult oral-health-related quality-of-life (OHRQoL) measures in supplementing clinical indicators has increased, that for children has lagged behind, because of the difficulties of developing and validating such measures for children. This study examined the construct validity of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ(11-14)) in a random sample of 12- and 13-year-old New Zealanders. It was hypothesized that children with more severe malocclusions or greater caries experience would have higher overall (and subscale domain) CPQ(11-14) scores. Children (N = 430) completed the CPQ(11-14) and were examined for malocclusion (Dental Aesthetic Index) and dental caries. There was a distinct gradient in mean CPQ(11-14) scores by malocclusion severity, but there were differences across the four subscales. Children in the worst 25% of the DMFS distribution had higher CPQ(11-14) scores overall and for each of the 4 subscales. The construct validity of the CPQ(11-14) appears to be acceptable.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".