MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763724871 · doi:10.4103/ejd.ejd_322_16

How to develop and validate a questionnaire for orthodontic research

2017· review· en· W2763724871 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Elbe, R M Baiju, Netiyatt Ommen Varghese, S Remadevi, David L. Streiner

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Dentistry · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeMalocclusionQuality of life (healthcare)MedicinePsychologyDentistryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of psychometric tools to assess various psychological aspects of malocclusion and treatment is increasing in orthodontics. Mere evaluation of an orthodontic patient with normative criteria is not enough; instead, the psychological status should be assessed using a questionnaire. Many generic and few condition-specific tools are available for assessing quality of life (QoL) in orthodontics. The steps involved in the development of such tools are complex and unknown to many. This article outlines the methodology involved in the development and validation of a psychometric tool for dental and orthodontic use. It also helps the clinician to translate and cross-culturally adapt an existing QoL tool to a different setting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.374
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of DentistrySame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207