ArticleEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2026
Psychometric validation of a novel instrument to measure caregiver-reported oral health-related quality of life in children with intellectual disabilities.
Article in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is a critical yet underexplored dimension of well-being in children with intellectual disabilities, who experience a disproportionately high burden of oral diseases due to cognitive, behavioural, and self-care limitations. Existing paediatric OHRQoL instruments were developed for typically developing populations and may not capture the unique experiences of this group. This study aimed to evaluate the construct validity, criterion validity, and reliability of a newly developed caregiver-reported OHRQoL instrument specifically designed for children with intellectual disabilities.
methodsA psychometric validation study was conducted among 200 children aged 12 to 18 years with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities and their mothers/caregivers from four special schools in Pondicherry, India. Caregiver-reported OHRQoL assessments were obtained through structured interviews, and clinical oral examinations recorded caries status. Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis. Criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity were assessed using correlation and group comparison analyses. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha, split-half reliability, and test-retest Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. Floor and ceiling effects were examined to determine score distribution.
resultsExploratory factor analysis yielded a seven-component structure reflecting cognitive, behavioural, emotional, caregiver, health-care system, motor, and family domains. Criterion validity was supported by significant correlations between caregiver-reported OHRQoL scores, perceived oral health, and caries burden. Discriminant validity showed significantly poorer caregiver-reported OHRQoL among children with higher caries experience. The instrument demonstrated excellent internal consistency (overall α = 0.947), strong split-half reliability, and acceptable test-retest stability. No ceiling effects and minimal floor effects were observed.
conclusionWithin the limitations of the study, the instrument demonstrated strong validity and reliability, offering a comprehensive tool to assess caregiver-reported OHRQoL in children with intellectual disabilities. Further validation across diverse settings and longitudinal evaluation are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42270943What 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.