ArticleBMC oral health2021
Validity and reliability of new instruments for measuring patient satisfaction with removable dentures, Arabic Version.
Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe psychometric properties of self-administered instruments for measuring patient satisfaction with removable dentures should be tested before inviting patients to express their opinions. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of new instruments in the Arabic language that measure patient satisfaction with all types of removable dentures.
methodsA three-step methodology was used to translate and test the instruments. In step one, the instruments were translated from tested German instruments to develop the pilot questionnaires. In step two, the face validity of the pilot questionnaires was tested through three rounds of interviews. There were 15, 13, and 15 participants per round, respectively. At the end of every round, the results of the interviews were discussed with an expert panel. The expert panel confirmed the form and the type of questionnaires' adjustments before a new round of interviews began. At the end of step two, the final form of the questionnaires was reached. In step three, 235 questionnaires were distributed to 133 participants to estimate the construct validity of the upper jaw and the lower jaw questionnaires. After one week, the participants were asked to complete the questionnaires again. A total of 102 questionnaires were returned and used to assess the instruments' reliability. Factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach's alpha were used to estimate the reliability and suitability of the items in the indexes.
resultsThe result of step one was two pilot questionnaires. The pilot questionnaires were adjusted in step two. At the end of step two, the questionnaires proved to have good face validity. Factor analyses in step three revealed that only one factor could be retained. The one-factor model explained 60.95% and 63.06 of the total variance of the upper jaw and lower jaw questionnaires, respectively. The items in every questionnaire shared the same cluster and could be summed to form an upper jaw index and lower jaw index that reflected patient satisfaction with removable dentures. Cronbach's alpha values indicated excellent internal consistency and reliability for the upper jaw questionnaire (α = 0.91) and the lower jaw questionnaire (α = 0.92). Intraclass correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.72 to 0.95, which can be considered "moderate" to "excellent".
conclusionsThe Arabic version of questionnaires and indexes assessing patient satisfaction with upper and lower removable dentures are reliable and valid self-administered instruments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.