OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the utility and validity of two popular socio-dental indicators (OIDP and OHIP-14) for describing the impact of oral conditions on quality of life applied simultaneously. STUDY DESIGN: We recruited a consecutive sample of 270 healthy Spanish workers visiting the Employment Risk Prevention Centre for a routine medical check-up. OHIP-14 was self-completed before the oral examination and the face to face interview of the OIDP was performed. Both instruments were compared by evaluating its reliability and its validity. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The standardised Cronbach alphas for OHIP-14 and OIDP were 0.89 and 0.74 respectively. OIDP showed lower face validity but higher content validity than OHIP-14. Both indicators showed high construct and criterion validity, since individuals perceiving need for dental treatment or having any complaint about their mouth obtained significantly higher total OIDP and OHIP scores than their counterparts. The prevalence of impacts was much higher using the OHIP (80.7%) than the OIDP (27.8%).
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the utility and validity of two popular socio-dental indicators (OIDP and OHIP-14) for describing the impact of oral conditions on quality of life applied simultaneously. STUDY DESIGN: We recruited a consecutive sample of 270 healthy Spanish workers visiting the Employment Risk Prevention Centre for a routine medical check-up. OHIP-14 was self-completed before the oral examination and the face to face interview of the OIDP was performed. Both instruments were compared by evaluating its reliability and its validity. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The standardised Cronbach alphas for OHIP-14 and OIDP were 0.89 and 0.74 respectively. OIDP showed lower face validity but higher content validity than OHIP-14. Both indicators showed high construct and criterion validity, since individuals perceiving need for dental treatment or having any complaint about their mouth obtained significantly higher total OIDP and OHIP scores than their counterparts. The prevalence of impacts was much higher using the OHIP (80.7%) than the OIDP (27.8%).
Authors: F Camacho-Alonso; C Cánovas-García; C Martínez-Ortiz; T De la Mano-Espinosa; T Ortuño-Celdrán; J I Marcello-Godino; R Ramos-Sánchez; M Sánchez-Siles Journal: Odontology Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 2.634
Authors: Kássia De Carvalho Dias; Adriana Da Fonte Porto Carreiro; Camila Maria Bastos Machado Resende; Ana Clara Soares Paiva Tôrres; Wilson Mestriner Júnior Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: A Blanco-Aguilera; A Blanco-Hungría; L Biedma-Velázquez; R Serrano-Del-Rosal; L González-López; E Blanco-Aguilera; R Segura-Saint-Gerons Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2014-03-01
Authors: Carmen Perea; María-Jesús Suárez-García; Jaime Del Río; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Javier Montero; Raquel Castillo-Oyagüe Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2013-05-01