OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to develop a reliable self-report measure of consumer satisfaction with orthodontic treatment, and to preliminarily assess its validity. METHOD: Transcripts of qualitative interviews with patients, their parents, and practicing orthodontists together with items from existing dental satisfaction questionnaires were used to develop a pool of 41 items assessing satisfaction with various aspects of orthodontic care. These items were paired with five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and were administered to 299 parents of children who had completed orthodontic treatment at two university-based clinics. RESULTS: Factor analyses and reliability analyses identified three main subscales with high reliabilities: 13 items assessing satisfaction with treatment process (Cronbach's alpha = .92), seven items assessing satisfaction with psychosocial effects of treatment (Cronbach's alpha = .87), and five items assessing satisfaction with overall treatment outcome (Cronbach's alpha = .79). Relationships among these three subscales and pre- and posttreatment variables were examined in a subset of 86 parents/patients. Forward stepwise regression with backward overlook revealed no significant relationships between any satisfaction subscale and demographic variables. Posttreatment overjet was inversely related to parental satisfaction with orthodontic treatment process (R2 = .13; P < .001), and parent satisfaction with treatment outcome (R2 = .28; P < .0001). Improvement in esthetics as measured by improvement in IOTN Aesthetic Component scores was positively related to satisfaction with psychosocial outcomes (R2 = .28; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The present instrument is reliable and can be used to assess three dimensions of parental satisfaction with their child's orthodontic treatment. Relationships between visible orthodontic outcome variables and parent satisfaction provide preliminary validity support for the instrument.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to develop a reliable self-report measure of consumer satisfaction with orthodontic treatment, and to preliminarily assess its validity. METHOD: Transcripts of qualitative interviews with patients, their parents, and practicing orthodontists together with items from existing dental satisfaction questionnaires were used to develop a pool of 41 items assessing satisfaction with various aspects of orthodontic care. These items were paired with five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and were administered to 299 parents of children who had completed orthodontic treatment at two university-based clinics. RESULTS: Factor analyses and reliability analyses identified three main subscales with high reliabilities: 13 items assessing satisfaction with treatment process (Cronbach's alpha = .92), seven items assessing satisfaction with psychosocial effects of treatment (Cronbach's alpha = .87), and five items assessing satisfaction with overall treatment outcome (Cronbach's alpha = .79). Relationships among these three subscales and pre- and posttreatment variables were examined in a subset of 86 parents/patients. Forward stepwise regression with backward overlook revealed no significant relationships between any satisfaction subscale and demographic variables. Posttreatment overjet was inversely related to parental satisfaction with orthodontic treatment process (R2 = .13; P < .001), and parent satisfaction with treatment outcome (R2 = .28; P < .0001). Improvement in esthetics as measured by improvement in IOTN Aesthetic Component scores was positively related to satisfaction with psychosocial outcomes (R2 = .28; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The present instrument is reliable and can be used to assess three dimensions of parental satisfaction with their child's orthodontic treatment. Relationships between visible orthodontic outcome variables and parent satisfaction provide preliminary validity support for the instrument.
Authors: E M Boerrigter; M E Geertman; R P Van Oort; J Bouma; G M Raghoebar; M A van Waas; M A van't Hof; G Boering; W Kalk Journal: Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 1.651
Authors: Adam M Skrypczak; William A Tressel; Sara Ghayour; Roozbeh Khosravi; Douglas S Ramsay Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 2.650