| Literature DB >> 26930403 |
Santhosh Kumar1,2, Jeroen Kroon1,2, Ratilal Lalloo1, Newell W Johnson2.
Abstract
Oral health related quality of life research among children in India is still nascent and no measures have been validated to date. Although CPQ11-14 has been previously used in studies from the Indian sub-continent, the instrument has never been tested for cross-cultural adaptability. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of CPQ11-14 in Telugu speaking Indian school children. Primary school children of Medak district, Telangana State, India, were recruited by a multi-stage probability sampling method. The translated questionnaire was initially pilot tested on a small subset of children (n = 40). Children with informed consent from parents (N = 1342) were then provided with questionnaires containing the Telugu translation of CPQ11-14, followed by a clinical examination conducted by a single examiner, using Basic WHO survey methods for dental caries, malocclusion, and Dean's Fluorosis index. Children (n = 161) in randomly chosen schools were re-administered the same questionnaire after a two week interval to test reliability of CPQ11-14 on repeated administrations. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability as determined by Cronbach's alpha and Intra-class correlation coefficient for overall CPQ11-14 scale were 0.925 and 0.923, respectively. CPQ11-14 discriminated between the categories of fluorosis and malocclusion while its discriminant validity with respect to dental caries was limited. CPQ11-14 also demonstrated good construct validity with both overall CPQ11-14 and its subscales having significant positive correlation with global ratings of oral health and overall wellbeing, even after adjusting for confounding variables. CPQ11-14 had a correlation of 0.405 with self-evaluated oral health and 0.407 with self-evaluated impact of oral health on overall wellbeing. In conclusion, Telugu translation of CPQ11-14 demonstrated good internal consistency and excellent reliability on repeated administrations after two weeks. It also exhibited good discriminant and construct validity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26930403 PMCID: PMC4773168 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Internal consistency, test-retest reliability and descriptive data of overall OHRQoL and its subscales.
| Number of items | Mean | ICC | 95% CI | Cronbachs alpha | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 4.87±3.54 | 0.863 | 0.818–0.898 | 0.624 | |
| 9 | 4.66±4.37 | 0.805 | 0.743–0.853 | 0.723 | |
| 9 | 4.47±5.74 | 0.876 | 0.835–0.908 | 0.869 | |
| 13 | 3.13±5.04 | 0.921 | 0.894–0.942 | 0.845 | |
| 37 | 17.15±15.75 | 0.923 | 0.896–0.943 | 0.907 |
Discriminant validity: CPQ11-14 and its subscales in relation to dental caries, malocclusion and fluorosis severity.
| N | Oral | Functional | Emotional | Social well | OHRQoL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| symptoms | limitations | well being | being | |||
| Median(IQR) | Median(IQR) | Median(IQR) | Median(IQR) | Median(IQR) | ||
| DMFT = 0 | 938 | 4 (5) | 4 (6) | 2 (7) | 1(4) | 13 (19) |
| DMFT = 1–3 | 311 | 4 (5) | 3 (5) | 2(7) | 1(4) | 11 (17) |
| DMFT>3 | 93 | 4 (6) | 3 (5) | 3(6.5) | 1(5) | 14 (17) |
| No | 1119 | 4 (5) | 3 (6) | 2 (6) | 1 (4) | 12 (18) |
| Yes | 223 | 5 (6) | 4 (7) | 4 (10)‡ | 2 (5) | 16 (22) |
| No to mild | 1063 | 4 (5) | 4 (6) | 2 (6) | 1 (3) | 12 (17) |
| Moderate to severe | 66 | 9.5 (6) | 9.5 (7) | 13 (12.3) | 10 (11.5) | 40 (26) |
*Mann whitney U test, p<0.05
†Mann Whitney U test, p<0.001
∞ Fluorosis examination was done only in 1129 subjects
Construct validity: overall CPQ11-14 and its subscale scores in relation to global self-rating of oral health and impact of oral health on overall wellbeing.
| N | Oral symptoms | Functional | Emotional | Social well | OHRQoL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median(IQR) | limitations | well being | being | |||
| Median(IQR) | Median(IQR) | Median(IQR) | Median(IQR) | |||
| Self–evaluated oral health | ||||||
| 151 | 2 (3) | 3 (3) | 0 (2) | 0 (1) | 6 (9) | |
| 225 | 3 (4) | 2 (3.5) | 1 (3) | 0 (2) | 7 (14) | |
| 387 | 4 (4) | 3 (4) | 2 (5) | 1 (3) | 12(16) | |
| 477 | 5 (5) | 4 (5) | 4 (8) | 2 (5) | 17 (19) | |
| 102 | 8 (5.5) | 8 (7.3) | 10.5 (10.3) | 8.5(10.3) | 35.5 (27) | |
| Self-evaluated impact of oral health on overall wellbeing | ||||||
| 556 | 3 (3.8) | 2 (3) | 1 (3) | 0 (2) | 7 (12) | |
| 418 | 5 (5) | 4 (6) | 3 (7) | 1 (4) | 15.5 (16) | |
| 258 | 6 (6) | 5 (7) | 5 (8.3) | 3 (7) | 21 (24) | |
| 57 | 6 (6) | 6 (9) | 7 (15) | 6 (12.5) | 28 (35) | |
| 53 | 8 (9) | 5 (9.5) | 3 (13) | 2 (13) | 18 (42) |
‡Kruskal Wallis H test, p<0.001
Construct validity: correlation of overall CPQ11-14 and its subscale scores with global self-rating of oral health and the impact of oral health on overall wellbeing.
| Self-rating of oral health | Self-rating of impact of oral health on overall wellbeing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | Partial r | r | Partial r | |
| Oral symptoms | 0.356 | 0.342 | 0.386 | 0.347 |
| Functional limitations | 0.269 | 0.247 | 0.311 | 0.286 |
| Emotional well being | 0.408 | 0.361 | 0.340 | 0.292 |
| Social well being | 0.323 | 0.273 | 0.323 | 0.312 |
| Overall OHRQoL | 0.405 | 0.376 | 0.407 | 0.375 |
r–Spearman correlation coefficient
Partial r–correlation coefficient adjusted for gender, Socio-economic status (SES), fluorosis, malocclusion and dental caries
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)