Turkish Version of the Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale: Validity and Reliability Study in Children With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to translate The Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale (MCH-FS) into Turkish and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Turkish version (T-MCH-FS) in children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: The study involved 160 children (70 children with CP and 90 typically developing children) aged 18 to 72 months. Karaduman Chewing Performance Scale (KCPS), Paediatric version of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (PEDI-EAT-10) and Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment Scale (BPFAS) were used to examine the construct validity of the T-MCH-FS. RESULTS: Internal consistency was sufficient with a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.820. There were correlations between the T-MCH-FS and the KCPS (r = 0.377, p < 0.001), the PEDI-EAT-10 (r = 0.655, p < 0.001) and the BPFAS scores for total frequency, child frequency, parent frequency, restriction and poor strategies (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The T-MCH-FS was found to be a reliable and valid instrument to evaluate feeding problems in children with CP and typically developing children. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Feeding problems are very common in children with CP and cause stress for the individual and their caregivers. What this paper adds to existing knowledge The MCH-FS is a practical and quick tool which provides a comprehensive overview regarding feeding problems. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The T-MCH-FS has been shown to be a reliable and valid tool for assessing feeding problems in children with CP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".