Abstract
Objectives
Questionnaires that measure oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in children and adolescents have emerged in recent years as an important source of patient-reported outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate potential effects of the method of administration (face-to-face interview, telephone interview, or self-administered questionnaire) in 11- to 14-year-old children and adolescents on OHRQoL information obtained using the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ).
Materials and methods
OHRQoL was measured using the German version of the CPQ (CPQ-G11–14). The instrument was administered to 42 children and adolescents aged 11 to 14 years using the three different methods in a randomized order with an interval of 1 week between each administration. Test–retest reliability for the repeated CPQ-G11–14 assessments across the three methods of administration, internal consistency, and convergent validity were determined.
Results
The CPQ-G11–14 mean summary scores did not vary statistically significantly across the three administration methods (P = 0.274). Test–retest reliability was moderate to good (ICC 0.69–0.82), internal consistency was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha 0.85–0.88), and CPQ-G11–14 mean summary scores were correlated in the expected direction with a global measure of self-reported oral health for all the three administration methods.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the method of administration (face-to-face interview, telephone interview, or self-administered questionnaire) did not influence CPQ-G11-14 scores in 11- to 14-year-old children and adolescents to a significant extent.
Clinical relevance
Investigators in German-speaking countries can choose between all three methods of administration to obtain valid and reliable OHRQoL information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Inglehart M, Bagramian R (2002) Oral health related quality of life: an introduction. In: Inglehart M, Bagramian R (eds) Oral health-related quality of life. Quintessence, Chicago, pp 13–28
Jokovic A, Locker D, Stephens M, Kenny D, Tompson B, Guyatt G (2002) Validity and reliability of a questionnaire for measuring child oral-health-related quality of life. J Dent Res 81:459–463
Bekes K, John MT, Zyriax R, Schaller HG, Hirsch C (2012) The German version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ-G11-14): translation process, reliability, and validity in the general population. Clin Oral Investig 16:165–171
Hawthorne G (2003) The effect of different methods of collecting data: mail, telephone and filter data collection issues in utility measurement. Qual Life Res 12:1081–1088
Fayers P, Machin D (2007) Quality of life—the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Wiley, Chichester
Reissmann DR, John MT, Schierz O (2011) Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile. Eur J Oral Sci 119:73–78
Jones D, Kazis L, Lee A, Rogers W, Skinner K, Cassar L, Wilson N, Hendricks A (2001) Health status assessments using the Veterans SF-12 and SF-36: methods for evaluating otucomes in the Veterans Health Administration. J Ambul Care Manag 24:68–86
de Sousa PCB, Mendes FM, Imparato JCP, Ardenghi TM (2009) Differences in responses to the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP14) used as a questionnaire or in an interview. Braz Oral Res 23:358–364
Hays RD, Bell RM, Gillogly JJ, Hill L, Giroux D, Davis C, Lewis MW, Damush TM, Nicholas R (1997) Impact of response options and feedback about response inconsistencies on alcohol use self-reports by microcomputer. J Alcohol Drug Educ 42:1–18
Robinson PG, Gibson B, Khan FA, Birnbaum W (2001) A comparison of OHIP 14 and OIDP as interviews and questionnaires. Community Dent Health 18:144–149
Medical Outcome Trust (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193–205
Malden PE, Thomson WM, Jokovic A, Locker D (2008) Changes in parent-assessed oral health-related quality of life among young children following dental treatment under general anaesthetic. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 36:108–117
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428
Schuck P (2004) Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: which coefficient should be used? Qual Life Res 13:571–586
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Streiner D, Norman G (2003) Bias in responding. In: Streiner D, Norman G (eds) Health measurement scales. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 228–247
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415
Bekes K, John MT, Schaller HG, Hirsch C (2011) The German version of the child perceptions questionnaire on oral health-related quality of life (CPQ-G11-14): population-based norm values. J Orofac Orthop 72:223–233
Ramos-Jorge ML, Vieira-Andrade RG, Martins-Junior PA, Cordeiro MM, Ramos-Jorge J, Paiva SM, Marques LS (2011) Level of agreement between self-administered and interviewer-administered CPQ8-10 and CPQ11-14. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 40:201–209
Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF (2003) A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 56:730–735
O'Toole BI, Battistutta D, Long A, Crouch K (1986) A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview. Am J Epidemiol 124:317–328
McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr (1994) Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey. Med Care 32:551–567
Lyons RA, Wareham K, Lucas M, Price D, Williams J, Hutchings HA (1999) SF-36 scores vary by method of administration: implications for study design. J Public Health Med 21:41–45
Acknowledgments
Ethical approval was given by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Leipzig. The study was supported by GABA International. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors are grateful to Ms. Annett Schrock (University of Leipzig) for her the help with data management and analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Malter, S., Hirsch, C., Reissmann, D.R. et al. Effects of method of administration on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ-G11–14). Clin Oral Invest 19, 1939–1945 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1434-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1434-3