The Polish version of the Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale (MCH-FS): translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of the study To provide a reliable and valid tool in Polish language for assessing the level of feeding difficulties among children from six months up to six years old by translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale (MCH-FS). Material and methods The translation and cross-cultural adaptation included: forward translation (by two independent translators), comparison of the two translated versions, blind back translation, comparison of the two back-translated versions, pilot testing, proofreading, and approval of the final version of the target language. Results To establish construct validity, 247 parents or caregivers of children completed the scale. The clinical sample included parents/caregivers (n = 124) of children referred to a feeding clinic, whereas the normative sample (n = 123) consisted of parents/caregivers of healthy children recruited from daycare centres. Statistically significant differences were found between the control group and children with feeding disorders for the total score (p < 0.001) and for each of the 14 items (p < 0.001). The instrument has strong internal consistency (α = 0.93). Test-retest reliability was obtained by re-administration of the MCH-FS to 84 subjects within a mean interval of 13.43 days. Test-retest correlation coefficients for the total score of the MCH-FS were 0.98 in the clinical group and in the normative group (p < 0.001), suggesting a high level of tool stability. Discussion The Polish version of the MCH-FS can be considered as a reliable and valid tool for screening the feeding difficulties in children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".