Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39563321›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2024

Validation of the Hungarian version of the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) in clinical and general populations.

Judit Oszlánszky, Károly Mensch, Péter Hermann, Zsombor Zrubka

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Judit OszlánszkyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi street 47, Budapest, Hungary. oszlanszky.judit@semmelweis.hu.
Károly MenschDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Faculty of Dentistry, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi street 47, Budapest, Hungary.
Péter HermannDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi street 47, Budapest, Hungary.
Zsombor ZrubkaHealth Economics Research Center, University Research and Innovation Center, University of Óbuda, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) provides a framework for selecting and validating patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs). This study aims to validate the Hungarian version of the GOHAI and, for the first time, to assess its Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), Smallest Detectable Change (SDC), and Measurement Invariance (MI) across general and clinical populations as well as different age groups, following COSMIN guidelines. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe translation was performed using a forward-backward process. A mixed sample (n = 306) was recruited in Budapest from May 2023 to February 2024, consisting of the general population (45.1%), recruited from health kiosks and a nursing home, and the clinical population (54.9%), sourced from Semmelweis University's care units. The sample was further divided into two age groups: 18-64 years old (54.9%) and 65 + years old (45.1%). GOHAI was administered twice to 108 stable participants. For both the additive score (ADD-GOHAI) and simple count (SC-GOHAI), structural validity and measurement invariance by subgroups were assessed via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, and test-retest reliability was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). SEM was calculated using the SEM agreement formula, and SDC using: [Formula: see text]. Convergent and known-group validity were tested against predefined hypotheses for structural validity.

resultsContrary to a three factor model, a single-factor model showed good fit in all subgroups for both scoring methods, with adequate internal consistency (Cronbach 𝛼: 0.76-0.85). Four of the six hypotheses for convergent validity and all ten hypotheses for known-groups validity supported the predefined criteria. Measurement invariance between clinical and general populations, or by age, was not demonstrated, so GOHAI's different measurement properties should be considered when comparing subpopulations. Test-retest reliability was adequate (ICC: 0.87-0.96). SDC was ≈5 points using ADD-GOHAI and 2-3 points using SC-GOHAI.

conclusionThe Hungarian version of GOHAI demonstrates satisfactory psychometric properties across both general and clinical populations, as well as among both younger and older age groups. While the measurement properties of SC-GOHAI may be more stable between populations, ADD-GOHAI seems more suitable for individual follow-up. However, observed changes must be considered in relation to the measurement error associated with GOHAI.

Indexed as

Oral HealthAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansHungaryMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTranslationsYoung AdultCOSMINdPROGOHAIOral healthPatient-reported outcomesPsychometricsQuality of lifeValidation

Identifiers

PMID39563321
PMCPMC11575072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.