Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A 7-day recall period for a clinical application of the oral health impact profile questionnaire

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Aims were to investigate and compare the validity and reliability of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) scores referencing 7-day and 1-month recall periods in international prosthodontic patients.

Material and methods

A sample of 267 patients (mean age = 54.0 years, SD = 17.2 years, 58 % women) with stable oral health-related quality of life was recruited from prosthodontic treatment centers in Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Slovenia, and Sweden. These patients completed the OHIP on two occasions using a new 7-day recall period and the traditional 1-month recall period. OHIP score validity and reliability were investigated with structural equation models (SEMs) that included OHIPpast 7 days and OHIP1 month latent factors and single indicator measures of global oral health status. The SEMs assessed measurement invariance and the relative validities of the two OHIP latent factors (representing the two recall periods).

Results

The SEMs provided cogent evidence for recall period measurement invariance for the two OHIP forms and equal validities (r = .48) with external measures of global oral health status.

Conclusion

When assessed in international prosthodontic patients, OHIP scores using the new 7-day recall period were as reliable and valid as the scores using the 1-month recall period.

Clinical relevance

Conceptual advantages make a 7-day recall period a preferred frame of reference in clinical applications of the OHIP questionnaire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our previous findings [17] indicated that in addition to a strong general factor of OHRQoL, the OHIP measures four weaker group factors that describe specific aspects of oral health (Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact). It is likely that inclusion of these weaker factors into our latent variable models would have improved the recovery of all item correlations. Unfortunately, our multisite samples were not sufficiently large to enable us to rigorously evaluate these more complex latent variable models.

References

  1. López R, Baelum V (2007) Oral health impact of periodontal diseases in adolescents. J Dent Res 86:1105–1109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Slade GD (1997) The Oral Health Impact Profile. In: Slade GD (ed) Measuring Oral Health and Quality of Life. University of North Carolina, Department of Dental Ecology, Chapel Hill, pp 93–104

  3. Adulyanon S, Sheiham A (1997) Oral Impacts on Daily Performances. In: Slade GD (ed) Measuring Oral Health and Quality of Life. University of North Carolina, Department of Dental Ecology, Chapel Hill, pp 151–160

  4. Dolan TA, Gooch BR (1997) Dental Health Questions from the RAND Health Insurance Study. In: Slade GD (ed) Measuring Oral Health and Quality of Life. University of North Carolina, Department of Dental Ecology, Chapel Hill, pp 65–70

  5. Schneider S, Choi SW, Junghaenel DU, Schwartz JE, Stone AA (2013) Psychometric characteristics of daily diaries for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): a preliminary investigation. Qual Life Res 22:1859–1869

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Slade GD, Spencer AJ (1994) Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 11:3–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. John MT, Reissmann DR, Feuerstahler L, Waller N, Baba K, Larsson P, Celebic A, Szabo G, Rener-Sitar K (2014) Factor analyses of the Oral Health Impact Profile - overview and studied population. J Prosthodont Res 58:26–34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Szentpetery A, Szabo G, Marada G, Szanto I, John MT (2006) The Hungarian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Eur J Oral Sci 114:197–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Petricevic N, Celebic A, Papic M, Rener-Sitar K (2009) The Croatian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile Questionnaire. Coll Antropol 33:841–847

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. John MT, Patrick DL, Slade GD (2002) The German version of the Oral Health Impact Profile–translation and psychometric properties. Eur J Oral Sci 110:425–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rener-Sitar K, Celebic A, Petricevic N, Papic M, Sapundzhiev D, Kansky A, Marion L, Kopac I, Zaletel-Kragelj L (2009) The Slovenian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile Questionnaire (OHIP-SVN): translation and psychometric properties. Coll Antropol 33:1177–1183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Larsson P, List T, Lundstrom I, Marcusson A, Ohrbach R (2004) Reliability and validity of a Swedish version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-S). Acta Odontol Scand 62:147–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yamazaki M, Inukai M, Baba K, John MT (2007) Japanese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-J). J Oral Rehabil 34:159–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. StataCorp (2013) Stata Statistical Software, Release 13. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX

  15. Locker D (1988) Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health 5:3–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 21 January 2015

  17. John MT, Feuerstahler L, Waller N, Baba K, Larsson P, Celebic A, Kende D, Rener-Sitar K, Reißmann DR (2014) Confirmatory factor analysis of the Oral Health Impact Profile. J Oral Rehabil 41:644–652

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. John MT, Reißmann DR, Feuerstahler L, Waller N, Baba K, Larsson P, Celebic A, Szabo G, Rener-Sitar K (2014) Exploratory factor analysis of the Oral Health Impact Profile. J Oral Rehabil 41:635–643

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Duhachek A, Iacobucci D (2004) Alpha’s standard error (ASE): an accurate and precise confidence interval estimate. J Appl Psychol 89:792–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fisher RA (1915) Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika 10:507–521

    Google Scholar 

  22. Steiger JH (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol Bull 87:245–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D, SPSS Inc (1996) LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: an R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J Stat Softw 48:1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nye CD, Drasgow F (2010) Assessing goodness of fit: simple rules of thumb simply do not work. Organ Res Methods 14:548–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bentler PM, Wu EJC (1995) EQS for Windows user’s guide. Multivariate Software, Encino, CA

    Google Scholar 

  28. Steiger JH, Lind JM (1980) Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual spring meeting of the Psychometric Society. Iowa City, IA

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107:238–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tucker LR, Lewis C (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1984) LISREL VI: analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods, 3rd edn. Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gregorich SE (2006) Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Med Care 44(11 Suppl 3):S78–S94

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. John MT, Reissmann DR, Szentpétery A, Steele J (2009) An approach to define clinical significance in prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 18:455–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Meulen MJ, John MT, Naeije M, Lobbezoo F (2008) The Dutch version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-NL): translation, reliability and construct validity. BMC Oral Health 8:11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Al-Jundi MA, Szentpétery A, John MT (2007) An Arabic version of the Oral Health Impact Profile: translation and psychometric properties. Int Dent J 57:84–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sutinen S, Lahti S, Nuttall NM, Sanders AE, Steele JG, Allen PF, Slade GD (2007) Effect of a 1-month vs. a 12-month reference period on responses to the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile. Eur J Oral Sci 115:246–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stull DE, Leidy NK, Parasuraman B, Chassany O (2009) Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: challenges and potential solutions. Curr Med Res Opin 25:929–942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Acaster S, Cimms T, Lloyd A (2012) Development of Methodological Standards Report: Topic # 3 - The Design and Selection of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Use in Patient Center Outcomes Research. Oxford Outcomes. http://www.pcori.org/assets/The-Design-and-Selection-of-Patient-Reported-Outcomes-Measures-for-Use-in-Patient-Centered-Outcomes-Research1.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2014

  39. Norquist JM, Girman C, Fehnel S, DeMuro-Mercon C, Santanello N (2012) Choice of recall period for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: criteria for consideration. Qual Life Res 21:1013–1020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shi Q, Trask PC, Wang XS, Mendoza TR, Apraku WA, Malekifar M, Cleeland CS (2010) Does recall period have an effect on cancer patients’ ratings of the severity of multiple symptoms? J Pain Symptom Manage 40:191–199

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Arnold BF, Galiani S, Ram PK, Hubbard AE, Briceno B, Gertler PJ, Colford JM Jr (2013) Optimal recall period for caregiver-reported illness in risk factor and intervention studies: a multicountry study. Am J Epidemiol 177:361–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Broderick JE, Schwartz JE, Vikingstad G, Pribbernow M, Grossman S, Stone AA (2008) The accuracy of pain and fatigue items across different reporting periods. Pain 139:146–157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Slade GD (1997) Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 25:284–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. John MT, Miglioretti DL, LeResche L, Koepsell TD, Hujoel PP, Micheelis W (2006) German short forms of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 34:277–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Durham J, Steele JG, Wassell RW, Exley C, Meechan JG, Allen PF, Moufti MA (2011) Creating a patient-based condition-specific outcome measure for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs): oral health impact profile for TMDs (OHIP-TMDs). J Oral Rehabil 38:871–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Allen F, Locker D (2002) A modified short version of the oral health impact profile for assessing health-related quality of life in edentulous adults. Int J Prosthodont 15:446–450

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wong AH, Cheung CS, McGrath C (2007) Developing a short form of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) for dental aesthetics: OHIP-aesthetic. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 35:64–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Van Der Meulen MJ, John MT, Naeije M, Lobbezoo F (2011) Developing abbreviated OHIP versions for use with TMD patients. J Oral Rehabil 39:18–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Baba K, Inukai M, John MT (2008) Feasibility of oral health-related quality of life assessment in prosthodontic patients using abbreviated Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires. J Oral Rehabil 35:224–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Larsson P, John MT, Hakeberg M, Nilner K, List T (2014) General population norms of the Swedish short forms of oral health impact profile. J Oral Rehabil 41:275–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01DE022331.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, N657 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Niels Waller & Leah Feuerstahler

  2. Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Mike T. John

  3. Department of Prosthodontics, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan

    Kazuyoshi Baba

  4. Centre of Oral Rehabilitation, Prosthetic Dentistry, Norrköping, Sweden

    Pernilla Larsson

  5. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Sanja Peršić

  6. Department of Prosthodontics, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary

    Dóra Kende

  7. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Daniel R. Reißmann

  8. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Division, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Ksenija Rener-Sitar

  9. Department of Prosthodontics, University Dental Clinics, University Medical Center of Ljubljan, Ljubljan, Slovenia

    Ksenija Rener-Sitar

Authors
  1. Niels Waller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mike T. John
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leah Feuerstahler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kazuyoshi Baba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pernilla Larsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sanja Peršić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dóra Kende
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daniel R. Reißmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ksenija Rener-Sitar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niels Waller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Waller, N., John, M.T., Feuerstahler, L. et al. A 7-day recall period for a clinical application of the oral health impact profile questionnaire. Clin Oral Invest 20, 91–99 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1484-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1484-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation