Effect of reducing the number of items of the Oral Health Impact Profile on responsiveness, validity and reliability in edentulous populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 49-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) has shown strong responsiveness, reliability and validity. However, the large number of items included may limit its use in clinical trials, clinical practice and surveys. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to assess the effect of reducing the number of items in each domain, one at a time, on responsiveness, reliability and validity of the OHIP in edentulous populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data used in this study were obtained from two randomized clinical trials comparing mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures among 102 subjects between 35 and 65 years of age, and 60 subjects over the age of 65 years. Participants were edentulous individuals who wished to replace their current prostheses. Subjects in both trials were asked to complete the 49-item OHIP prior to treatment and at 2 months post-treatment. Within the study, effect sizes were computed at each stage of item reduction using the impact method. Intraclass correlation coefficients and Pearson's correlation coefficients were also assessed at each stage of item reduction. In addition, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to indicate the accuracy with which measurement changes corresponded to judgements of important changes in Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQL). RESULTS: The results indicated that, in general, domain responsiveness was not affected by the reduction of the number of items used per domain. However, there was a decrease in reliability, especially within the 'psychological' and 'social' disabilities and 'handicap' domains (35- to 65-year group). In addition, there was a decrease in construct validity of the 'physical pain', 'psychological' and 'social disabilities' domains (35- to 65-year group), as well as on 'physical pain', 'psychological discomfort', 'physical' and 'psychological' disabilities in the 65-year and older group. This occurred primarily, when reducing from two to one item per domain. Among the 35- to 65-year group, there were consistencies in patients' ratings of the importance of similarly measured changes in oral health. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that although the 49-item OHIP responsiveness could be maintained with item reduction, this will lead to compromises in reliability and validity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".