ArticlePEC innovation2022
Development of KROHL, a tool for evaluating oral health knowledge.
Article in PEC innovation, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breaking barriers: Validation of a Spanish oral health knowledge tool to enhance patient-provider communication.PloS one · 2026Article
- An Epistemic Look at Parental Conceptual Knowledge and Oral Health Outcomes in Children.Global pediatric health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The authors aim to evaluate a scale assessing oral health knowledge, the KROHL (Knowledge Related to Oral Health Literacy) including the inter-rater reliability for scoring open-ended questions, internal consistency of the hypothesized scales, the discriminant validity of the resulting scale and its relationship to existing measures of oral health literacy. Methods: The questionnaire was administered via face-to-face interviews to 144 volunteers recruited in the waiting areas of clinics throughout the NYU College of Dentistry.The KROHL questionnaire evaluates oral health knowledge by asking open-ended questions about the appearance, cause, treatment and prevention of caries, gum disease, oral cancer, tooth loss and malocclusion. Those 20 questions were scored to produce scale scores. Demographic information, a self-reported measure of HL and the CMOHK (Comprehensive Measure of Oral Health Knowledge) were also collected.Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients and principal components analysis, by computing Cronbach's alpha and Cohen's kappa, and by comparing group means with ANOVA. Results: Kappa indicated good to excellent agreement among raters for the full and the individual subscales of the KROHL. Cronbach's alpha indicated good consistency of the full scale score, but not the individual scales. The mean (SD) KROHL score was lower in the patient group than in the dental students (13.3 (5.9) vs. 26.1 (4.7), Conclusions: The KROHL scale is an innovative, reliable and valid tool to assess overall oral health knowledge and provide information to customize educational interventions. Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of the scale in multiple settings. Innovation: The innovation of the KROHL tool of assessment of oral health knowledge lies in its ability to scale depth of knowledge within the domains of identification, causes, prevention, and treatment for the most common oral conditions.
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.