MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Satisfaction with orthodontic treatment: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of an instrument for the Brazilian Portuguese language

2022· article· en· W4361016450 on OpenAlexaff
Renata Negreiros Alvarenga, Saul Martins Paiva, Carlos Flores‐Mir, Eduardo Bernabé, Lucas Guimarães Abreu

Bibliographic record

VenueDental Press Journal of Orthodontics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct validityCronbach's alphaPsychosocialDiscriminant validityCeiling effectClinical psychologyBrazilian PortugueseExploratory factor analysisPsychologyEuropean PortuguesePortugueseMedicinePhysical therapyPsychometricsInternal consistencyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To cross-culturally adapt into the Brazilian Portuguese and evaluate the psychometric properties of an instrument for assessing the satisfaction of parents/guardians regarding their sons'/daughters' orthodontic treatment. METHODS: Translations of the instrument from English, pre-test and evaluation of validity and reliability of the Brazilian Portuguese version were performed. The questionnaire has 25 items distributed across 3 subscales (process, psychosocial effect and outcome). Eighty-three parents/guardians of children/adolescents who had completed orthodontic treatment participated. Descriptive statistics and floor and ceiling effects were calculated. Internal consistency, stability (interval of three weeks), convergent construct validity and discriminant construct validity were determined. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed dimensionality. RESULTS: Among the 83 parents/guardians, 58 (69.9%) were mothers and 25 (30.1%) were fathers of children/adolescents. In the questionnaire's total score and the three subscales scores, an acceptable percentage (≤15%) of participants achieved the maximum score (ceiling effect). In the total questionnaire score and in the three subscales scores, no participant achieved the minimum score (floor effect). Cronbach's α coefficient for the total score was 0.72 (internal consistency). Intra-class correlation coefficient for the total score was 0.71 (stability). The questionnaire's total score presented large Pearson correlation coefficient (>0.50) with the three subscales too (construct validity). Female parents/guardians had significantly higher scores in the psychosocial effect (p=0.013) and in the treatment outcome (p=0.037) subscales, compared to male parents/guardians (discriminant validity). EFA and CFA confirmed dimensionality in a three-factor solution. CONCLUSIONS: The final obtained version is valid and reliable to be used in Brazilian populations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental Press Journal of OrthodonticsSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207