Development and evaluation of an oral health literacy instrument for adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate an instrument to measure the functional oral health literacy of adults. METHODS: For the generation of items different dental patient educational materials and text types were selected that had reading levels similar to materials used for the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) which was the model for our Oral Health Literacy Instrument (OHLI). The OHLI contains reading comprehension and numeracy sections. The reading comprehension section is a 38-item test with words omitted from one passage on dental caries and another on periodontal disease. The numeracy section has 19 items to test comprehension of directions for taking common prescriptions associated with dental treatment, postextraction instructions and dental appointments. We also developed a 17-item oral health knowledge test. The OHLI, the TOFHLA, the oral health knowledge test and a brief questionnaire were administered to a convenience sample of 100 patients. Internal reliability of OHLI was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest reliability was examined by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Concurrent validity was tested by comparing OHLI scores across categories of education level and frequency of dental visits. Construct validity was assessed by correlating OHLI scores with TOFHLA scores and with the oral health knowledge scores using Spearman's rho (rho) and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Participants averaged 39 years (SD = 12.4); 73% were female; 64% had college/university education; 40% visited a dentist every 3-6 months. Total OHLI and TOFHLA weighted mean scores were 87.2 and 91.7, respectively (possible range 0-100). The Cronbach's alpha values were high (>0.7) for OHLI and its components. The ICC values indicated good agreement between the test and retest results for OHLI and the oral health knowledge test. Patients visiting a dentist every 3-6 months had significantly higher levels of oral health literacy than those visiting only when they felt pain. The association between OHLI and education level was not significant. OHLI scores were significantly correlated with the scores on the TOFHLA (rho = 0.613) and the test of oral health knowledge (rho = 0.573). These associations remained significant in multiple regression models. CONCLUSION: Initial testing of OHLI suggested that it is a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate oral health literacy among adults, although additional work is needed to investigate the instrument's predictive validity and sensitivity to change using oral health outcomes with population groups known to be at high risk of low functional oral health literacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".