ArticleCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2026
The Modified Oral Status Survey Tool: Development and Psychometrics for Accessible Oral Health Data Collection.
Article in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesUnderstudied populations such as those with intellectual disabilities (ID) face significant disease burden and oral health disparities. Systematic exclusion from oral health research contributes to resultant health inequalities, limits understanding of the determinants and implications of disease, and hinders the ability to improve health through evidence-based policy and healthcare planning. This study reports the development of the Modified Oral Status Survey Tool (MOSST), an accessible, low burden oral health assessment tool designed for use with populations who require communication and cognitive supports. It explores the MOSST's key measurement attributes: conceptual coverage, content validity, reliability, feasibility, and cost.
methodThe study followed an iterative tool development process. The MOSST was tested in two steps: (1) attribute testing of an interim version (MOSST v0.1) for inter and intra-rater reliability, burden, cost and feasibility; and (2) content validity testing of MOSST v1.0 using an expert and a Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) panel. Field testing involved data collection from Wave 5 of the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA), with data from n = 469 participants undertaking a MOSST assessment.
resultsData from n = 469 adults with ID were analysed. The MOSST demonstrated very strong/strong inter- and intra-rater reliability for tooth count (ICC = 0.999), denture wear, occlusal pairs, and oral pain (k = 0.808-1.00). Content validity was confirmed through expert and PPI panel reviews; item-level Content Validity Indices (iCVI) ranging from 0.85 to 1.00 were gained from the expert panel responses to measure agreement. This review process led to refinements, including replacing items representing occlusal function with functional tooth units and relocating the subjective oral pain item. This led to a final MOSSTv1.0 tool and associated training, protocol and resources. The MOSST was acceptable: 98% (n = 65) reporting data collection process acceptable; 100% (n = 66) painless and 100% (n = 66) not time-consuming. The cost per assessment was low (approx. €6.69) due to low equipment and staff costs.
conclusionThe MOSST is a seven-item tool recording indicators of oral function and disease. It was shown to be reliable, valid, and feasible for use by non-dental assessors among people with ID. It is low cost, low burden, quick and feasible and offers potential for use among understudied communities.
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.