Daniel R Reissmann1, Antje Erler2, Christian Hirsch3, Ira Sierwald4, Carolina Machuca5, Oliver Schierz2. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. d.reissmann@uke.de. 2. Department of Prosthodontics and Materials Science, School of Dentistry, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 3. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 4. Department of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Pedodontics, Center for Dental and Craniofacial Sciences, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 5. Academic Unit of Dental Public Health, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aim of this exploratory study was to investigate whether a retrospective assessment of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) is susceptible to bias such as implicit theory of change and cognitive dissonance. METHODS: In this prospective clinical study, a sample of 126 adult patients (age 17-83 years, 49% women) requiring prosthodontic treatment was consecutively recruited. The OHRQoL was assessed using the 49-item OHIP at baseline and at follow-up. Additionally, patients were asked at follow-up to retrospectively rate their oral health status at baseline (retrospective pretest or then-test) and the change in oral health status using a global transition question. Furthermore, patients' ratings of overall oral health and general health were used as validity criteria for the OHRQoL assessments. Response shift was calculated as the difference between the initial and retrospective baseline assessments. RESULTS: Baseline and retrospective pretest did not differ substantially in terms of internal consistency and convergent validity. Response shift was more pronounced when patients perceived a large change in OHRQoL during treatment. Retrospective pretests were more highly correlated with the baseline than with the follow-up assessment. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that retrospective assessments of OHRQoL using the OHIP-49 are susceptible to bias. Cognitive dissonance is more likely to appear as a source of bias than implicit theory of change.
PURPOSE: Aim of this exploratory study was to investigate whether a retrospective assessment of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) is susceptible to bias such as implicit theory of change and cognitive dissonance. METHODS: In this prospective clinical study, a sample of 126 adult patients (age 17-83 years, 49% women) requiring prosthodontic treatment was consecutively recruited. The OHRQoL was assessed using the 49-item OHIP at baseline and at follow-up. Additionally, patients were asked at follow-up to retrospectively rate their oral health status at baseline (retrospective pretest or then-test) and the change in oral health status using a global transition question. Furthermore, patients' ratings of overall oral health and general health were used as validity criteria for the OHRQoL assessments. Response shift was calculated as the difference between the initial and retrospective baseline assessments. RESULTS: Baseline and retrospective pretest did not differ substantially in terms of internal consistency and convergent validity. Response shift was more pronounced when patients perceived a large change in OHRQoL during treatment. Retrospective pretests were more highly correlated with the baseline than with the follow-up assessment. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that retrospective assessments of OHRQoL using the OHIP-49 are susceptible to bias. Cognitive dissonance is more likely to appear as a source of bias than implicit theory of change.
Authors: Mike T John; Linda LeResche; Thomas D Koepsell; Philippe Hujoel; Diana L Miglioretti; Wolfgang Micheelis Journal: Eur J Oral Sci Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 2.612
Authors: Jessica L Taylor; Patrick J Smith; Michael A Babyak; Krista A Barbour; Benson M Hoffman; Deborah L Sebring; R Duane Davis; Scott M Palmer; Francis J Keefe; Robert M Carney; Iris Csik; Kenneth E Freedland; James A Blumenthal Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Guido Heydecke; Lisa A Tedesco; Charles Kowalski; Marita R Inglehart Journal: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.383
Authors: Andreas Hinz; Michael Friedrich; Tobias Luck; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf; Katja Petrowski Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-01-13
Authors: Estelina Ortega-Gómez; Purificación Vicente-Galindo; Helena Martín-Rodero; Purificación Galindo-Villardón Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Véronique Sébille; Lisa M Lix; Olawale F Ayilara; Tolulope T Sajobi; A Cecile J W Janssens; Richard Sawatzky; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Mathilde G E Verdam Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 4.147