Reliability and Validity of a Lithuanian Version of the Oral Health Impact Profile—A Study in Patients with Stage III–IV Periodontitis

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The study aimed to translate the original English version of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) into Lithuanian and to assess reliability and validity of the translated instrument (OHIP-Lt) in patients with advanced stages of periodontitis. Materials and Methods: Subjects (N = 67) with stage III–IV periodontitis aged 30–63 years were surveyed by questionnaire and examined clinically. Psychometric analysis included explanatory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses and psychometric tests. Results: Cronbach’s alpha of the translated OHIP was 0.96. EFA revealed four dimensions which Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.75 to 0.96. Construct validity of the four-factor model derived from the OHIP-Lt was supported by findings of CFA (RMSEA = 0.077). The total OHIP-Lt and its subscale scores increased as the patients’ self-rated oral health status changed from healthy to unhealthy. Discriminative validity of the OHIP-Lt was confirmed by its higher scores among patients who had an increased spacing between the maxillary anterior teeth and increased clinical attachment level (CAL 5 mm) compared to those who did not. Conclusions: The translated Lithuanian version of OHIP-Lt was identified as four-dimension inventory. Good reliability and validity of the OHIP-Lt provide the evidence for its further use in study on advanced periodontal disease burden among Lithuanian patients.

Impact of Periodontal Diseases on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: A Study with a Condition-Specific Questionnaire in Croatian Population

“…22 The ICC value of 0.984 showed excellent agreement, with similar or higher values compared to other questionnaires. 9,10,23 However, because of the different methodologies and instruments, it is difficult to compare the results between studies.…”

“…OHIP-14-PD-CRO demonstrated good discriminant validity and was able to differentiate the "healthy," "gingivitis," and "periodontitis" groups with significant differences between total score means, which is in accordance with other validation studies. 9,10,23 In this study, a population stratified by periodontal status was used intentionally to compare the QoL in the three "main" periodontal diagnoses. Many other studies used convenient samples of general population or focused on patients with periodontitis, and most systematic reviews targeted studies with patients with periodontal diseases (both periodontitis and gingivitis) or periodontitis.…”

“…Both groups with periodontal disease showed higher overall scores. Patients with gingivitis had an average score of 14 (12-20), followed by a significantly higher score of 28 (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34) in the group with periodontitis (p < 0.001; ►Fig. 2).…”