Linguistic-cultural validation of a French version of the oral health assessment tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to conduct a linguistic-cultural validation for the French context, of the original Australian version of the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT) scale. METHODS: The study design is a mixed retrospective-prospective psychometric and linguistic translation/validation/study of the Oral Health Assessment Tool. This validation involved two samples: a retrospective convenience sample of 1319 patients from the "Geriatric Frailty Clinic (GFC) for Assessment of Frailty and Prevention of Disability" and a prospective sample included 50 patients (34 from the long-term care unit and 16 from the neuro-locomotive follow-up care and rehabilitation unit). RESULTS: The face validity showed a clarity score for each item higher than 80%. The content validity was confirmed by a content validity index for items (I-CVI) score equal to or greater than 0.8 for each item and a content validity index for scales (S-CVI) of 0.91 for the entire tool. Internal consistency was considered good in the retrospective sample (Cronbach's alpha value of 0.73) and excellent in the prospective sample (Cronbach's alphas were 0.90 for each examiner). Inter-rater reliability was excellent for the total OHAT score (ICC = 0.98, 95% CI (0.97-0.99) at T0, and ICC = 0.99, 95% CI (0.99-1) at T1) and showed strong to almost perfect agreement (κ-values for single items varying from a minimum of 0.85 to 1) by items. Intra-rater reliabilities were considered substantial to excellent by items. CONCLUSIONS: The French version of the OHAT is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the oral health of older people even with cognitive disorders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".