Validity of an instrument assessing oral health problems in people with Down syndrome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to validate a proxy measure of oral health designed to be completed by the English-speaking parents of people with Down syndrome (DS) aged four years or more. METHODOLOGY: Items were generated through literature review, interviews with parents of people with DS and professional experts and through frequency testing. Data were gathered from one population-based and two clinic-based samples for the separate aspects of validation. Validation consisted of evaluation of: i) internal reliability of the domain structure through Cronbach's alpha; ii) criterion validity against clinical indicators and a clinician's evaluation of some items; iii) construct validity involving an age-matched comparison of domain scores between people with DS and non-DS siblings, and within the DS group by health status indicators; and iv) test-retest reliability through the generation of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: A 20-item instrument with four domains (communication, eating, parafunction and symptoms) was developed. Cronbach's alpha by domain was 0.5-0.8. Indicators of criterion validity for domains against clinical indicators (Spearman's coefficient 0.1-0.4) and parent-rated items against clinician-rated items (weighted Kappa 0.1-0.8) were varied as anticipated. Indicators of construct validity (differences with non-DS siblings and correlations with medical status within the DS group) were excellent. Test-retest reliability was good (ICC range 0.64-0.84). CONCLUSION: These data suggest the test instrument is valid as a descriptive, discriminative, proxy English language measure of oral health problems in people with DS aged four years or more.
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".