Niels Waller1, Mike T John2, Leah Feuerstahler3, Kazuyoshi Baba4, Pernilla Larsson5, Sanja Peršić6, Dóra Kende7, Daniel R Reißmann8, Ksenija Rener-Sitar9,10. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, N657 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. nwaller@umn.edu. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, N657 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. 4. Department of Prosthodontics, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Centre of Oral Rehabilitation, Prosthetic Dentistry, Norrköping, Sweden. 6. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. 7. Department of Prosthodontics, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. 8. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 9. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Division, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 10. Department of Prosthodontics, University Dental Clinics, University Medical Center of Ljubljan, Ljubljan, Slovenia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Aims were to investigate and compare the validity and reliability of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) scores referencing 7-day and 1-month recall periods in international prosthodontic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample of 267 patients (mean age = 54.0 years, SD = 17.2 years, 58 % women) with stable oral health-related quality of life was recruited from prosthodontic treatment centers in Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Slovenia, and Sweden. These patients completed the OHIP on two occasions using a new 7-day recall period and the traditional 1-month recall period. OHIP score validity and reliability were investigated with structural equation models (SEMs) that included OHIP(past 7 days) and OHIP(1 month) latent factors and single indicator measures of global oral health status. The SEMs assessed measurement invariance and the relative validities of the two OHIP latent factors (representing the two recall periods). RESULTS: The SEMs provided cogent evidence for recall period measurement invariance for the two OHIP forms and equal validities (r = .48) with external measures of global oral health status. CONCLUSION: When assessed in international prosthodontic patients, OHIP scores using the new 7-day recall period were as reliable and valid as the scores using the 1-month recall period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Conceptual advantages make a 7-day recall period a preferred frame of reference in clinical applications of the OHIP questionnaire.
OBJECTIVES: Aims were to investigate and compare the validity and reliability of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) scores referencing 7-day and 1-month recall periods in international prosthodontic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample of 267 patients (mean age = 54.0 years, SD = 17.2 years, 58 % women) with stable oral health-related quality of life was recruited from prosthodontic treatment centers in Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Slovenia, and Sweden. These patients completed the OHIP on two occasions using a new 7-day recall period and the traditional 1-month recall period. OHIP score validity and reliability were investigated with structural equation models (SEMs) that included OHIP(past 7 days) and OHIP(1 month) latent factors and single indicator measures of global oral health status. The SEMs assessed measurement invariance and the relative validities of the two OHIP latent factors (representing the two recall periods). RESULTS: The SEMs provided cogent evidence for recall period measurement invariance for the two OHIP forms and equal validities (r = .48) with external measures of global oral health status. CONCLUSION: When assessed in international prosthodontic patients, OHIP scores using the new 7-day recall period were as reliable and valid as the scores using the 1-month recall period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Conceptual advantages make a 7-day recall period a preferred frame of reference in clinical applications of the OHIP questionnaire.
Authors: Ksenija Rener-Sitar; Asja Celebić; Nikola Petricević; Milan Papić; Dime Sapundzhiev; Andrej Kansky; Ljubo Marion; Igor Kopac; Lijana Zaletel-Kragelj Journal: Coll Antropol Date: 2009-12
Authors: Qiuling Shi; Peter C Trask; Xin Shelley Wang; Tito R Mendoza; Winifred A Apraku; Maggie Malekifar; Charles S Cleeland Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-06-25 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Benjamin F Arnold; Sebastian Galiani; Pavani K Ram; Alan E Hubbard; Bertha Briceño; Paul J Gertler; John M Colford Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mike T John; Daniel R Reissmann; Asja Čelebić; Kazuyoshi Baba; Dóra Kende; Pernilla Larsson; Ksenija Rener-Sitar Journal: J Dent Date: 2016-06-25 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: J S Kirby; L Thorlacius; B Villumsen; J R Ingram; A Garg; K B Christensen; M Butt; S Esmann; J Tan; G B E Jemec Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Christine J Fenenga; Katalin Buzasi; Daniel K Arhinful; Stephen K O Duku; Alice Ogink; Wouter Poortinga Journal: Glob Health Res Policy Date: 2018-12-06
Authors: Danna R Paulson; Swaha Pattanaik; Phonsuda Chanthavisouk; Mike T John Journal: Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 1.595
Authors: Daniel R Reissmann; Mike T John; Leah Feuerstahler; Kazuyoshi Baba; Gyula Szabó; Asja Čelebić; Niels Waller Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Mohammed Nasser Alhajj; Esam Halboub; Nadia Khalifa; Abdullah G Amran; Daniel R Reissmann; Abbas G Abdullah; Mounzer Assad; Abdulghani A Al-Basmi; Fawaz A Al-Ghabri Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 3.186