SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability and validity of the Child Perception Questionnaire 8 ~ 10 (CPQ8~10) in China: an instrument for measuring oral health-related quality of life among 8–10-year-old children

  • Research
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Children aged 8–10 are in a critical stage of growth and development, facing complex and specific oral health problems. In China, there is no specific assessment questionnaire for this age group. The Child Perception Questionnare 8 ~ 10 (CPQ8~10) has been widely used in many countries, with good reliability and validity. This study aimed to translate the CPQ8~10 into Chinese and assess its reliability and validity, and ascertain its applicability for 8–10-year-old children in China.

Materials and methods

Brislin’s translation model was used in develo** the Chinese version of CPQ8~10. Internal consistency, retest reliability, criterion validity, and confirmatory factor analysis were performed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CPQ8~10 among 494 8 ~ 10-year-old children in China.

Results

A Chinese version of the CPQ8~10, aligned with Chinese culture and social features, was developed. The criterion validity was 0.719 (P < 0.001). The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) for the Chinese version of the CPQ8~10 were 0.80 ~ 1.00 and 0.968, respectively. Factor analysis revealed a logical relationship among the items in the Chinese version of the CPQ8~10. The Cronbach′s α coefficient, retest reliability, and Guttman split-half reliability coefficient for the Chinese version of the CPQ8~10 were 0.819, 0.830, and 0.849, respectively.

Conclusions

The Chinese version of the CPQ8~10 exhibited a structure consistent with the original questionnaire, displaying good reliability and validity. This study facilitates the application of CPQ8~10 in China.

Clinical relevance

The Chinese version of the CPQ8~10 is a brief and suitable tool to evaluate oral health-related quality of life of 8 ~ 10-year-old children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

References

  1. DHHS (2000) Oral health in America: a report of the Surgeon General. J Calif Dent Assoc 28(9):685–95

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pinheiro SAA, Rodrigues HB, Santos JTL, Granja GL, Lussi A, Leal SC et al (2020) Association of dental caries morbidity stages with oral health-related quality of life in children and adolescents. Int J Paediatr Dent 30(3):293–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Najirad M, Madathil SA, Rauch F, Sutton VR, Lee B, Retrouvey JM et al (2020) Malocclusion traits and oral health-related quality of life in children with osteogenesis imperfecta: a cross-sectional study. J Am Dent Assoc 151(7):480–90.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2020.03.040

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Feldens CA, Ardenghi TM, Dos Santos Dullius AI, Vargas-Ferreira F, Hernandez PA, Kramer PF (2016) Clarifying the impact of untreated and treated dental caries on oral health-related quality of life among adolescents. Caries Res 50(4):414–421. https://doi.org/10.1159/000447095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Severo Alves L, Dam-Teixeira N, Susin C, Maltz M (2013) Association among quality of life, dental caries treatment and intraoral distribution in 12-year-old South Brazilian schoolchildren. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 41(1):22–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00707.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Stefani A, Bruno G, Irlandese G, Barone M, Costa G, Gracco A (2019) Oral health-related quality of life in children using the Child Perception Questionnaire CPQ11-14: a review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 20(5):425–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00418-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shi R (2022) Correlation analysis of self-efficacy, co** styles, and quality of life related to oral health in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. Int J Nurs 41(15):2723–2727. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn221370-20201105-00692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Oliveira T, Menegaz AM, Rosário AMD, Romano AR, Schardosim LR, Mendes FM et al (2023) Impact of dental caries severity and activity on oral health-related quality of life among children aged 8–11 years. Braz Oral Res 37:e41. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2023.vol37.0041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vargas-Ferreira F, Zeng J, Thomson WM, Peres MA, Demarco FF (2014) Association between developmental defects of enamel and dental caries in schoolchildren. J Dent 42(5):540–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee CY, Ting CC, Wu JH, Lee KT, Chen HS, Chang YY (2018) Dental visiting behaviours among primary schoolchildren: application of the health belief model. Int J Dent Hyg 16(2):e88–e95. https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crotty JE, Martin-Herz SP, Scharf RJ (2023) Cognitive development. Pediatr Rev 44(2):58–67. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.2021-005069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Camacho MC, Quiñones-Camacho LE, Perlman SB (2020) Does the child brain rest?: an examination and interpretation of resting cognition in developmental cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage 212:116688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mei L, He S, Wang H, Ma H (2012) Analysis of the reliability and validity of the simplified Chinese version of the early childhood oral health impact scale. Shanghai J Stomatol 21(1):94–98

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wang A, Huang H, Ling J (2012) Validation of a Chinese Version of Oral Health-related Quality of Life in children. Chin J Stomatol Res 6(6):503–507

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tian C (2008) Validation and application study of the Oral Impact Scale of Children’s Daily Life (Child-OIDP Chinese version) [D]. Sun Yat-Sen University, Guang Dong

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lin J, Yu F, Fang X, Ha P, Gong C, Shi B (2017) Validation of a Chinese version of oral health-related quality of life in children. Int J Stomatol 44(4):445–451. https://doi.org/10.7518/gjkq.2017.04.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jokovic A, Locker D, Stephens M, Kenny D, Tompson B, Guyatt G (2002) Validity and reliability of a questionnaire for measuring child oral-health-related quality of life. J Dent Res 81(7):459–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910208100705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rebok G, Riley A, Forrest C, Starfield B, Green B, Robertson J et al (2001) Elementary school-aged children’s reports of their health: a cognitive interviewing study. Qual Life Res 10(1):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016693417166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bee H (1998) Lifespan development, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jokovic A, Locker D, Tompson B, Guyatt G (2004) Questionnaire for measuring oral health-related quality of life in eight- to ten-year-old children. Pediatr Dent 26(6):512–518

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zeng X, Cheng B, Zhang L, Guo Y, Li Y, Zou J et al (2022) Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire for children aged 8–10 years old. West China J Stomatol 40(01):75–79

    Google Scholar 

  22. Broder HL, Wilson-Genderson M (2007) Reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile (COHIP Child’s version). Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 35(Suppl 1):20–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.0002.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones PS, Lee JW, Phillips LR, Zhang XE, Jaceldo KB (2001) An adaptation of Brislin’s translation model for cross-cultural research. Nurs Res 50(5):300–304. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200109000-00008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gorsuch R (1983) Factor analysis, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  25. Comrey A, Lee H (1992) A first course in factor analysis. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  26. Raykov T, Marcoulides GA (2016) On the relationship between classical test theory and item response theory: from one to the other and back. Educ Psychol Meas 76(2):325–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415576958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cromhout A, Schutte L, Wissing MP, Schutte WD (2022) Further investigation of the dimensionality of the questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being. Front Psychol 13:795770. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.795770

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Streiner D, Norman G, Cairney J (2003) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Health Measurement Scales (2016) a practical guide to their development and use (5th edition). Aust N Z J Public Health 40(3):294–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Khamis H (2008) Measures of association: how to choose? J Diagn Med Son 24(3):155–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756479308317006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bekes K, Ebel M, Omara M, Boukhobza S, Dumitrescu N, Priller J et al (2021) The German version of Child Perceptions Questionnaire for children aged 8 to 10 years (CPQ-G8-10): translation, reliability, and validity. Clin Oral Investig 25(3):1433–1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03451-w

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Boy-Lefèvre ML, Razanamihaja N, Azogui-Lévy S, Vigneron A, Jordan L, Berdal A et al (2018) Translation and validation of the French version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire for children aged from 8 to 10 years old (CPQ (8–10)). Health Qual Life Outcomes 16(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0907-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Al-Blaihed D, El-Housseiny AA, Farsi NJ, Farsi NM (2020) Validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire for 8–10-year-old children. Qual Life Res 29(11):3131–3141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02545-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Li X, Huang H, Lin T, Huang G (2008) Validation of a Chinese version of the Child Perception Questionnaire. West China J Stomatol 03:267–270

    Google Scholar 

  36. Li X (2015) Effect of the 169 Zhengzhou 10–12 years old children's oral daily life [Master]: Zhengzhou University

  37. Wu Q, Jia D, Liu H (2016) Investiogation and analysis of the psychological impact of malocclusion on Junior high school students in Wujiaqu city. Chinese J Aesthet Med 25(02):71–75. https://doi.org/10.15909/j.cnki.cn61-1347/r.001018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang L, Wu S, Wang L, Xu J, Liu H (2017) Evaluation of the influence of two different first molar restoration methods on health-related quality of life in children. Chinese J Aesthet Med 26(11):106–08. https://doi.org/10.15909/j.cnki.cn61-1347/r.002066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Huang H (2007) Validation and Application of a Chinese Version of the 11–14 years old child oral-health-related Quality of Life(COHRQoL11–14) [Master]: Zhongshan University

  40. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM et al (2018) COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 27(5):1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shi J, Mo X, Sun Z (2012) Content validity index in scale development. J Central South Univ 37(2):152–155. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-7347.2012.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF (2019) Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Adm Pharm 15(2):214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV (2007) Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal Recomm Res Nurs Health 30(4):459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank all the participants in the investigation. The authors would like to thank all the reviewers who participated in the review, as well as MJEditor (www.mjeditor.com) for providing English editing services during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Devices of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, 310000, People’s Republic of China

    Fanjun Kong

  2. School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Liaoning Provincial Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Shenyang, China

    Fanjun Kong, Yuqin Gao & Lulu Yuan

Authors
  1. Fanjun Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuqin Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lulu Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Fanjun Kong: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, visualization, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing. Yuqin Gao: methodology, project administration, and supervision. Lulu Yuan: conceptualization, methodology, project administration, formal analysis, supervision, validation, and writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lulu Yuan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics statement

All study materials were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Stomatological Hospital affiliated with China Medical University under approval number [2020]-17. Informed consent from both parents and children were obtained prior to responding to the survey questions.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kong, F., Gao, Y. & Yuan, L. Reliability and validity of the Child Perception Questionnaire 8 ~ 10 (CPQ8~10) in China: an instrument for measuring oral health-related quality of life among 8–10-year-old children. Clin Oral Invest 27, 7671–7682 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05356-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05356-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation