Valérie Cusson1, Christian Caron2,3, Pierrette Gaudreau4, José A Morais5,6, Bryna Shatenstein7, Hélène Payette1,8. 1. Research Centre on Aging, Health and Social Services Center, University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. 2. Centre d'Excellence sur le Vieillissement de Québec, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Québec, Quebec, Quebec, Canada. 3. Faculty of Dental Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal Research Center, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 5. Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 6. Division of Geriatrics, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 7. Department of Nutrition, Centre de Recherche, Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 8. Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine internal consistency and criterion validity of a questionnaire assessing perception of masticatory efficiency in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Secondary cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the Québec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Successful Aging (NuAge). SETTING: NuAge is a 5-year (2003-08) observational study of 1,793 men and women aged 67 to 84 in good general health at recruitment. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 1,789 was used to determine internal consistency of the questionnaire. A subsample (n = 94) of the cohort who underwent a clinical test directly measuring masticatory efficiency was used to determine criterion validity of the questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS: The questionnaire was a subset of the Oral Health Impact Profile containing 7 Likert-scale questions (score 0-28 points). Masticatory efficiency was assessed using a validated clinical test measuring ability to chew a raw carrot (Swallowing Threshold Test Index, score 0-100%). For perceived and measured data, a higher score indicated better masticatory efficiency. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the questionnaire was deemed good (Cronbach alpha = 0.803). Mean scores were generally high (men, 25.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 24.7-25.9; women, 24.3, 95% CI = 23.7-25.0), indicating good perceived masticatory efficiency for men and women. Mean performance test scores were low (men, 60.8%, 95% CI = 57.3-64.2; women, 61.2%, 95% CI = 57.7-64.7). No significant relationship between perceived and measured masticatory efficiency was observed (Pearson correlation coefficient = -0.14, P = .22). CONCLUSION: Despite good internal consistency of the questionnaire and the recognized validity of the test, people's perception of their masticatory efficiency does not reflect objective efficiency as measured using a clinical test.
OBJECTIVES: To determine internal consistency and criterion validity of a questionnaire assessing perception of masticatory efficiency in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Secondary cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the Québec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Successful Aging (NuAge). SETTING: NuAge is a 5-year (2003-08) observational study of 1,793 men and women aged 67 to 84 in good general health at recruitment. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 1,789 was used to determine internal consistency of the questionnaire. A subsample (n = 94) of the cohort who underwent a clinical test directly measuring masticatory efficiency was used to determine criterion validity of the questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS: The questionnaire was a subset of the Oral Health Impact Profile containing 7 Likert-scale questions (score 0-28 points). Masticatory efficiency was assessed using a validated clinical test measuring ability to chew a raw carrot (Swallowing Threshold Test Index, score 0-100%). For perceived and measured data, a higher score indicated better masticatory efficiency. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the questionnaire was deemed good (Cronbach alpha = 0.803). Mean scores were generally high (men, 25.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 24.7-25.9; women, 24.3, 95% CI = 23.7-25.0), indicating good perceived masticatory efficiency for men and women. Mean performance test scores were low (men, 60.8%, 95% CI = 57.3-64.2; women, 61.2%, 95% CI = 57.7-64.7). No significant relationship between perceived and measured masticatory efficiency was observed (Pearson correlation coefficient = -0.14, P = .22). CONCLUSION: Despite good internal consistency of the questionnaire and the recognized validity of the test, people's perception of their masticatory efficiency does not reflect objective efficiency as measured using a clinical test.