MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144106377 · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-4

Short forms of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire for 11-14-year-old children (CPQ11-14): development and initial evaluation.

2006· article· en· W2144106377 on OpenAlexafffund
Aleksandra Jokovic, David Locker, Gordan Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstitute of Population and Public HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenSick Kids Foundation
KeywordsConstruct validityQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyDiscriminative modelPopulationStandard scoreStatisticsPsychometricsClinical psychologyMedicineMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Child Perceptions Questionnaire for children aged 11 to 14 years (CPQ11-14) is a 37-item measure of oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) encompassing four domains: oral symptoms, functional limitations, emotional and social well-being. To facilitate its use in clinical settings and population-based health surveys, it was shortened to 16 and 8 items. Item impact and stepwise regression methods were used to produce each version. This paper describes the developmental process, compares the discriminative properties of the resulting four short-forms and evaluates their precision relative to the original CPQ11-14. METHODS: The item impact method used data from the CPQ11-14 item reduction study to select the questions with the highest impact scores in each domain. The regression method, where the dependent variable was the overall CPQ11-14 score and the independent variables its individual questions, was applied to the data collected in the validity study for the CPQ11-14. The measurement properties (i.e. criterion validity, construct validity, internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability) of all 4 short-forms were evaluated using the data from the validity and reliability studies for the CPQ11-14. RESULTS: All short forms detected substantial variability in children's OHRQoL. The mean scores on the two 16-item questionnaires were almost identical, while on the two 8-item questionnaires they differed by only one score point. The mean scores standardized to 0-100 were higher on the short forms than the original CPQ11-14 (p < 0.001). There were strong significant correlations between all short-form scores and CPQ11-14 scores (0.87-0.98; p < 0.001). Hypotheses concerning construct validity were confirmed: the short-forms' scores were highest in the oro-facial, lower in the orthodontic and lowest in the paediatric dentistry group; all short-form questionnaires were positively correlated with the ratings of oral health and overall well-being, with the correlation coefficient being higher for the latter. The relative validity coefficients were 0.85 to 1.18. Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients ranged 0.71-0.83 and 0.71-0.77, respectively. CONCLUSION: All short forms demonstrated excellent criterion validity and good construct validity. The reliability coefficients exceeded standards for group-level comparisons. However, these are preliminary findings based on the convenience sampling and further testing in replicated studies involving clinical and general samples of children in various settings is necessary to establish measurement sensitivity and discriminative properties of these questionnaires.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations291
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and Quality of Life OutcomesSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207