The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reliability and validity of Korean version of the OHIP for edentulous subjects: A pilot study

무치악 환자들을 위한 한국어 버전의 구강건강영향지수 신뢰도와 타당성 평가를 위한 모의연구

  • Shin, Jae Seob (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, Korea University Guro Hospital) ;
  • Bae, So Young (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, Korea University Guro Hospital) ;
  • Park, Jin Hong (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, Korea University Guro Hospital) ;
  • Shim, Ji Suk (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, Korea University Guro Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Jeong Yol (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, Korea University Guro Hospital)
  • 신재섭 (고려대학교 구로병원 임상치의학연구소 치과보철과) ;
  • 배소영 (고려대학교 구로병원 임상치의학연구소 치과보철과) ;
  • 박진홍 (고려대학교 구로병원 임상치의학연구소 치과보철과) ;
  • 심지석 (고려대학교 구로병원 임상치의학연구소 치과보철과) ;
  • 이정열 (고려대학교 구로병원 임상치의학연구소 치과보철과)
  • Received : 2021.04.21
  • Accepted : 2021.05.21
  • Published : 2021.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-EDENT K) for edentulous patients. Materials and methods. The study was conducted on 12 patients who fabricated overdenture in the Department of Prosthodontics, Korea University, Guro Hospital. All subjects completed the Korean version of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP K) questionnaire. Shorten version of the OHIP called OHIP-14 K and OHIP-EDENT K were derived from the datasets. Cronbach's alpha was used to measure internal consistency of the summary scores for OHIP-EDENT K. The Spearman's correlation coefficient between the summary scores for OHIP-EDENT K and OHIP K was calculated to evaluate concurrent validity. Results. The reliability of the summary scores for OHIP-EDENT K was acceptable (α=.736). The Spearman's correlation coefficient of the summary scores for OHIP-EDENT K and OHIP K was 0.966, which was statistically significant (P<.001). OHIP-EDENT K exhibited less susceptibility to floor effects than OHIP-14 K and appeared to measure change as effectively as OHIP K. In order to prove the reliability, responsiveness and validity of OHIP-EDENT K, further studies with more samples are needed. Conclusion. The OHIP-EDENT K, a questionnaire on oral health-related QOL comprising 19 items, has measurement properties comparable with the full 49-item version. This modified shortened version can be an alternative questionnaire to full version of OHIP K and OHIP-14 K in edentulous patients.

목적: 이 연구는 무치악 환자들을 위한 한국어 버전의 구강건강영향지수(OHIP-EDENT K)의 신뢰성을 평가하고 기존의 OHIP K, OHIP-14 K와의 타당성을 파악하기 위한 향후 연구의 예비적 탐색을 목적으로 시행되었다. 대상 및 방법: 고려대학교 구로병원 치과보철과로 내원한 환자들 가운데 임플란트 오버덴처를 착용중인 환자 12명을 대상으로 연구를 진행하였다. 모든 환자들은 한국어 버전의 구강건강영향지수 설문을 진행하였다. 기존의 구강건강영향지수의 축약버전인 OHIP-14 K와 OHIP-EDENT K를 진행한 설문조사의 내용을 바탕으로 얻어내었다. OHIP-EDENT K의 내적 신뢰도를 평가하기 위해 크론바흐 알파 테스트를 진행하였다. 기존의 OHIP K와의 관련성을 평가하기 위해 스피어만 상관계수 분석방법을 이용해 OHIP-EDENT K와의 타당성을 평가하였다. 결과: OHIP-EDENT K의 크론바흐 알파 값은 0.736으로 신뢰도가 수용 가능한 정도의 값을 보였다. OHIP-EDENT K와 기존의 49개 문항의 OHIP은 스피어만 상관계수가 0.966을 보였으며 통계적으로 유의미한 값을 보였다(P < .001). OHIP-EDENT K는 OHIP-14 K에 비해 바닥효과가 적게 나타나며 OHIP K와 비슷하게 효과적으로 구강건강 만족도를 평가할 수 있음을 알 수 있었다. 결론: 무치악 환자들의 구강건강과 관련된 삶의 질을 평가하기 위해 19개의 설문문항을 갖는 OHIP-EDENT K는 49개의 설문 문항을 갖는 경우와 비슷한 측정 수준을 보임을 알 수 있었다. OHIP-EDENT K는 OHIP K와 OHIP-14 K의 대안으로 사용가능 할 수 있으며, OHIP-EDENT K의 신뢰도, 응답성 그리고 타당성을 입증하기 위해서는 보다 많은 표본 수와 추가적인 연구를 포함한 연구가 필요하다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (Project No.HI13C2194).

References

  1. John MT, Slade GD, Szentpetery A, Setz JM. Oral health-related quality of life in patients treated with fixed, removable, and complete dentures 1 month and 6 to 12 months after treatment. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:503-11.
  2. Strassburger C, Kerschbaum T, Heydecke G. Influence of implant and conventional prostheses on satisfaction and quality of life: A literature review. Part 2: Qualitative analysis and evaluation of the studies. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:339-48.
  3. Slade GD. Measuring oral health and quality of life. Chapel Hill; University of North Carolina; 1997. p. 1-160.
  4. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 1994;11:3-11.
  5. Slade GD, Strauss RP, Atchison KA, Kressin NR, Locker D, Reisine ST. Conference summary: assessing oral health outcomes-measuring health status and quality of life. Community Dent Health 1998;15:3-7.
  6. Zani SR, Rivaldo EG, Frasca LC, Caye LF. Oral health impact profile and prosthetic condition in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported overdentures and fixed prostheses. J Oral Sci 2009;51:535-43. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.51.535
  7. Locker D. Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health 1988;5:3-18.
  8. Allen PF, McMillan AS, Locker D. An assessment of sensitivity to change of the Oral Health Impact Profile in a clinical trial. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:175-82. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0528.2001.290303.x
  9. Bae KH, Kim HD, Jung SH, Park DY, Kim JB, Paik DI, Chung SC. Validation of the Korean version of the oral health impact profile among the Korean elderly. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35:73-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00331.x
  10. Sato Y, Kaiba Y, Yamaga E, Minakuchi S. Reliability and validity of a Japanese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for edentulous subjects. Gerodontology 2012;29:e1033-7.
  11. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:284-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x
  12. Heydecke G, Tedesco LA, Kowalski C, Inglehart MR. Complete dentures and oral health-related quality of life - do coping styles matter? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32:297-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00169.x
  13. Locker D, Jokovic A, Clarke M. Assessing the responsiveness of measures of oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32:10-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00114.x
  14. Allen F, Locker D. A modified short version of the oral health impact profile for assessing health-related quality of life in edentulous adults. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:446-50.
  15. Allison P, Locker D, Jokovic A, Slade G. A cross-cultural study of oral health values. J Dent Res 1999;78:643-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345990780020301
  16. Locker D. Patient-based assessment of the outcomes of implant therapy: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:453-61.
  17. Seo J, MacEntee M, Brondani M. The use of subject matter experts in validating an oral health-related quality of life measure in Korean. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015;13:138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0335-0
  18. Nunnally J, Bernstein L. Psychometric theory. New York; McGraw-Hill Higher, Inc.; 1994. p. 1-736.
  19. Cohen R, Swerdlik M. Psychological testing and assessment. Boston; McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2010. p. 1-35.
  20. Locker D, Allen F. What do measures of 'oral health-related quality of life' measure? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35:401-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00418.x
  21. Larsson P, List T, Lundstrom I, Marcusson A, Ohrbach R. Reliability and validity of a Swedish version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-S). Acta Odontol Scand 2004;62:147-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016350410001496
  22. Bae KH, Kim C, Paik DI, Kim JB. A comparison of oral health related quality of life between complete and partial removable denture-wearing older adults in Korea. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:317-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01565.x
  23. Schmitt N. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment 1996;8:350-3. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350
  24. Lawson DM. Applying generalizability theory to high-stakes objective structured clinical examinations in a naturalistic environment. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2006;29:463-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.06.009
  25. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Post-examination analysis of objective tests. Med Teach 2011;33:447-58. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.564682
  26. Green S, Thompson M. Structural equation modeling in clinical psychology research. In: Roberts M, Ilardi S, editors. Handbook of research in clinical psychology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2005. p. 1-70.
  27. Wong MC, Lo EC, McMillan AS. Validation of a Chinese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002;30:423-30. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0528.2002.00013.x
  28. Leon S, Bravo-Cavicchioli D, Correa-Beltran G, Giacaman RA. Validation of the Spanish version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14Sp) in elderly Chileans. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:95. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-95
  29. Bindman AB, Keane D, Lurie N. Measuring health changes among severely ill patients. The floor phenomenon. Med Care 1990;28:1142-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199012000-00003
  30. Sebring NG, Guckes AD, Li SH, McCarthy GR. Nutritional adequacy of reported intake of edentulous subjects treated with new conventional or implant-supported mandibular dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:358-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80374-9
  31. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update. 4th ed. Boston; Allyn and Bacon; 2003.
  32. Moss S, Patel P, Prosser H, Goldberg D, Simpson N, Rowe S, Lucchino R. Psychiatric morbidity in older people with moderate and severe learning disability. I: Development and reliability of the patient interview (PAS-ADD). Br J Psychiatry 1993;163:471-80. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.163.4.471
  33. Shevlin M, Miles JNV, Davies MNO, Walker S. Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of reliability? Pers Individ Dif 2000;28:229-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00093-8