4.1 Article

A German version of the GOHAI

Journal

COMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 34-42

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00351.x

Keywords

elderly; oral health; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Translation, reliability analysis and validation of a German version of the Geriatric/General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) was the aim of this study. Methods: Translation was performed by a forward-backward process. Validity was assessed as convergent validity in comparison with another self-perceived assessment of oral health (OHIP-14) and as group validity (n = 218; mean age 73 years). Reliability was proved in terms of internal consistency, inter-item and item-scale correlations, and stability (test-retest procedure; n = 36; mean age 77 years). The responsiveness to change in oral health status was assessed by pre- and post-treatment comparison (n = 21; mean age 63 years). Results: A German version of the GOHAI is presented. Convergent validity was sufficient (r = -0.76 compared with OHIP-14); group validity could be demonstrated for self-perceived need for treatment, chewing problems, number of own teeth, caries lesions present and dental status. The internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92) as were inter-item and item-scale correlations, for which good homogeneity of the index was apparent. The test-retest correlation for the summary score was r = 0.84, single item correlations ranged from r = 0.36 to r = 0.89. The GOHAI sum score increased significantly after patients received new dentures, indicating responsiveness of the GOHAI to clinical change in the expected direction. Conclusions: The German version of the GOHAI had sufficient reliability, validity and responsiveness to be used as measure of oral health-related quality of life in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of the elderly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available