ArticleHealth science reports2026
Content Validity and Test-Retest Reliability Study of Oral Cancer Awareness Questionnaire.
Article in Health science reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Targeted and validated questionnaire is a vital tool in assessing oral cancer awareness (OCA) in the community. This study is aimed at validating a targeted oral cancer awareness questionnaire for people living in Far North Queensland. Methods: This study was conducted in a Far North Queensland population attending the student led university dental clinic in Cairns. The questionnaire consisted of four domains: sociodemographic information, awareness and knowledge on oral cancer, PMDs and risk factors, source of information for oral cancer and PMDs and exposure to known risk factors such as habits and dietary history. The first stage of this study assessed content validity of questionnaire with clinical experts while the subsequent stage evaluated its reliability in a test-retest study amongst 30 dental patients attending the clinic for routine care. Analysis was performed using SPSS software and appropriate Kappa tests were run for each question to assess the reliability. Results: In first stage, out of the 25 questions, 22 showed a validity index of 1, suggesting high agreement between two clinical experts that assessed validity with the overall content validity index at 88%. In test-retest reliability study involving 30 participants, 30 out of 38 items (including multiple choice questions converted to binary statements) showed an item content validity index (CVI) of 1 as evidence of full agreement. The OCA questionnaire had 'almost perfect' or 'perfect agreements' for questions related to tobacco smoking: exposure (Fleiss Kappa = 1), duration (Weighted Kappa = 1), and as a risk factor (Weighted Kappa = 1), smoking status ( Conclusion: The OCA questionnaire items showed acceptable content validity and test-retest reliability. Based on the preliminary evidence of acceptable reliability for specific items, this questionnaire can be employed for studies investigating OCA in adults living in Far North Queensland.
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.