↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of psychometric properties and differential item functioning of 8-item Child Perceptions Questionnaires using item response theory

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of psychometric properties and differential item functioning of 8-item Child Perceptions Questionnaires using item response theory
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2133-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

David TW Yau, May CM Wong, KF Lam, Colman McGrath

Abstract

Four-factor structure of the two 8-item short forms of Child Perceptions Questionnaire CPQ11-14 (RSF:8 and ISF:8) has been confirmed. However, the sum scores are typically reported in practice as a proxy of Oral health-related Quality of Life (OHRQoL), which implied a unidimensional structure. This study first assessed the unidimensionality of 8-item short forms of CPQ11-14. Item response theory (IRT) was employed to offer an alternative and complementary approach of validation and to overcome the limitations of classical test theory assumptions. A random sample of 649 12-year-old school children in Hong Kong was analyzed. Unidimensionality of the scale was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), principle component analysis (PCA) and local dependency (LD) statistic. Graded response model was fitted to the data. Contribution of each item to the scale was assessed by item information function (IIF). Reliability of the scale was assessed by test information function (TIF). Differential item functioning (DIF) across gender was identified by Wald test and expected score functions. Both CPQ11-14 RSF:8 and ISF:8 did not deviate much from the unidimensionality assumption. Results from CFA indicated acceptable fit of the one-factor model. PCA indicated that the first principle component explained >30 % of the total variation with high factor loadings for both RSF:8 and ISF:8. Almost all LD statistic <10 indicated the absence of local dependency. Flat and low IIFs were observed in the oral symptoms items suggesting little contribution of information to the scale and item removal caused little practical impact. Comparing the TIFs, RSF:8 showed slightly better information than ISF:8. In addition to oral symptoms items, the item "Concerned with what other people think" demonstrated a uniform DIF (p < 0.001). The expected score functions were not much different between boys and girls. Items related to oral symptoms were not informative to OHRQoL and deletion of these items is suggested. The impact of DIF across gender on the overall score was minimal. CPQ11-14 RSF:8 performed slightly better than ISF:8 in measurement precision. The 6-item short forms suggested by IRT validation should be further investigated to ensure their robustness, responsiveness and discriminative performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Researcher 3 4%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 31%
Psychology 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,235,639
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,340
of 14,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,728
of 266,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#240
of 343 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 343 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.