Bias in retrospective assessment of perceived dental treatment effects when using the Oral Health Impact Profile
Standard
Bias in retrospective assessment of perceived dental treatment effects when using the Oral Health Impact Profile. / Reissmann, Daniel R; Erler, Antje; Hirsch, Christian; Sierwald, Ira; Machuca, Carolina; Schierz, Oliver.
In: QUAL LIFE RES, Vol. 27, No. 3, 01.03.2018, p. 775-782.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Bias in retrospective assessment of perceived dental treatment effects when using the Oral Health Impact Profile
AU - Reissmann, Daniel R
AU - Erler, Antje
AU - Hirsch, Christian
AU - Sierwald, Ira
AU - Machuca, Carolina
AU - Schierz, Oliver
PY - 2018/3/1
Y1 - 2018/3/1
N2 - PURPOSE: Aim of this exploratory study was to investigate whether a retrospective assessment of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) is susceptible to bias such as implicit theory of change and cognitive dissonance.METHODS: In this prospective clinical study, a sample of 126 adult patients (age 17-83 years, 49% women) requiring prosthodontic treatment was consecutively recruited. The OHRQoL was assessed using the 49-item OHIP at baseline and at follow-up. Additionally, patients were asked at follow-up to retrospectively rate their oral health status at baseline (retrospective pretest or then-test) and the change in oral health status using a global transition question. Furthermore, patients' ratings of overall oral health and general health were used as validity criteria for the OHRQoL assessments. Response shift was calculated as the difference between the initial and retrospective baseline assessments.RESULTS: Baseline and retrospective pretest did not differ substantially in terms of internal consistency and convergent validity. Response shift was more pronounced when patients perceived a large change in OHRQoL during treatment. Retrospective pretests were more highly correlated with the baseline than with the follow-up assessment.CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that retrospective assessments of OHRQoL using the OHIP-49 are susceptible to bias. Cognitive dissonance is more likely to appear as a source of bias than implicit theory of change.
AB - PURPOSE: Aim of this exploratory study was to investigate whether a retrospective assessment of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) is susceptible to bias such as implicit theory of change and cognitive dissonance.METHODS: In this prospective clinical study, a sample of 126 adult patients (age 17-83 years, 49% women) requiring prosthodontic treatment was consecutively recruited. The OHRQoL was assessed using the 49-item OHIP at baseline and at follow-up. Additionally, patients were asked at follow-up to retrospectively rate their oral health status at baseline (retrospective pretest or then-test) and the change in oral health status using a global transition question. Furthermore, patients' ratings of overall oral health and general health were used as validity criteria for the OHRQoL assessments. Response shift was calculated as the difference between the initial and retrospective baseline assessments.RESULTS: Baseline and retrospective pretest did not differ substantially in terms of internal consistency and convergent validity. Response shift was more pronounced when patients perceived a large change in OHRQoL during treatment. Retrospective pretests were more highly correlated with the baseline than with the follow-up assessment.CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that retrospective assessments of OHRQoL using the OHIP-49 are susceptible to bias. Cognitive dissonance is more likely to appear as a source of bias than implicit theory of change.
KW - Journal Article
U2 - 10.1007/s11136-017-1725-z
DO - 10.1007/s11136-017-1725-z
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 29063350
VL - 27
SP - 775
EP - 782
JO - QUAL LIFE RES
JF - QUAL LIFE RES
SN - 0962-9343
IS - 3
ER -