4.1 Article

Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile-short form

期刊

COMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 307-314

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2005.00225.x

关键词

oral health; quality of life; questionnaires; validity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the measurement properties of the Brazilian version of the short form of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP14). Methods: Data were obtained from a cross-sectional study designed to assess the impact of toothache on quality of life during pregnancy. The sample consisted of 504 postpartum women (mean age 24 years; SD 6.2), most of whom had unsolved dental problems and belonged to low-income families. The questionnaire was administered in the form of interviews by two trained interviewers who also performed clinical examinations. Reliability was assessed in terms of internal consistency and stability. Construct validity was evaluated based on comparison of the total scores among groups according to: self-perceived and normative oral health care needs, self-perceived general and oral health status, presence of carious lesions and tooth loss. It was also hypothesized that the scores of OHIP14 and Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) would correlate with each other. Results: Both test-retest stability and internal consistency, as measured by the intra-class correlation coefficient (0.87) and by Cronbach's alpha (0.91), proved to be adequate. Construct validity was confirmed as the correlation between OHIP14 scores with self-perceived general and oral health were in the expected direction, and the differences in scores of the groups formed according to the selected attributes were significant at values of P <= 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test). Moreover, the correlation coefficient between OIDP and OHIP14 was 0.76 (r(s)). Conclusion: The Brazilian version of OHIP14 has good psychometric properties, which are similar to those of the original instrument.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据