Portuguese Version of the Oral Frailty Index-8: Instrument Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The concept of oral frailty has gained scientific and clinical relevance in recent years, and early detection can facilitate timely intervention to manage its progression. The Oral Frailty Index-8 (OFI-8) was developed to assess community-dwelling older adults at risk for oral frailty. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the psychometric validity of the OFI-8 in the Portuguese population, named the Portuguese version of the OFI-8 (OFI-8-PT), which may serve as a reference for future studies related to longevity and oral function. METHODS: This study included 2 main phases, involving patients aged 60 years or older, Portuguese speakers, and those who consented to participate in the study. First, the researchers translated and cross-culturally adapted the original questionnaire to make it suitable for native Portuguese speakers. The translated tool was then assessed for psychometric validation, which consisted of test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and sex invariance measurement. RESULTS: A total of 159 older adults participated in the baseline survey, with almost equal numbers of male (n=79, 49.7%) and female participants (n=80, 50.3%). The OFI-8-PT demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach α=0.95) and construct validity (goodness-of-fit index=0.96; comparative fit index=0.85; and root mean square error of approximation=0.05, 90% CI 0.00-0.09). The study found sex invariance, indicating that the OFI-8-PT is equally valid for male and female participants, and the tested-retest reliability of the OFI-8-PT was good, indicating consistent results over time. CONCLUSIONS: The OFI-8-PT showed psychometric validity and good reliability to be used in the Portuguese population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".