5条目口腔健康影响程度量表中文版的信度和效度研究

doi:10.7518/hxkq.2020.02.006

华西口腔医学杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (2): 145-148.doi: 10.7518/hxkq.2020.02.006

5条目口腔健康影响程度量表中文版的信度和效度研究

吕灏¹^,², 何福明¹^,²()

^1. 浙江大学医学院附属口腔医院修复科,杭州 310006
^2. 浙江省口腔生物医学研究重点实验室,浙江大学口腔医学院,杭州 310006

收稿日期:2019-07-23 修回日期:2020-01-16 出版日期:2020-04-01 发布日期:2020-04-15
通讯作者: 何福明 E-mail:hfm@zju.edu.cn
作者简介:吕灏,主治医师,硕士,E-mail：13857929797@163.com

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the 5-item oral health impact profile

Lü Hao¹^,², He Fuming¹^,²()

^1. Dept. of Prosthodontics, Stomatology Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310006, China
^2. Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310006, China

Received:2019-07-23 Revised:2020-01-16 Online:2020-04-01 Published:2020-04-15
Contact: Fuming He E-mail:hfm@zju.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的对5条目口腔健康影响程度量表（OHIP-5）进行信度和效度评价。方法按照国际生活质量量表准则,形成OHIP-5中文版,该量表包括5个条目。将OHIP-5中文版应用于就诊的患者,最终对调查结果进行统计学分析。采用内部一致性信度、重测信度对量表的信度进行考评;采用结构效度和收敛效度对量表的效度进行评价。结果共回收有效问卷556份。量表总的克朗巴赫α系数为0.868,重测信度系数为0.831。经过验证性因子分析,修正模型的主要指标中,卡方/自由度=2.419,拟合指数=0.995,调整拟合指数=0.960,标准拟合指数=0.996,增量拟合指数=0.997,塔克-刘易斯指数=0.985,比较拟合指数=0.997,误差平方根近似值=0.070,均达到模型拟合标准。量表总分的Spearman’s等级相关系数为0.674。结论 OHIP-5中文版通过严格的性能测试,信度和效度良好,可在临床研究及流行病学调查中进一步推广应用。

关键词: 口腔健康影响程度量表, 信度, 效度

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the 5-item oral health impact profile (OHIP-5). Methods According to the international guidelines, the Chinese version of the OHIP-5 was produced. It was applied to patients who visit our clinic. The reliability of the scale was evaluated by internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability. In addition, the validity of the scale was evaluated by construct validity and convergent validity. Results A total of 556 patients were enrolled in the study. The Cronbach’s alpha and the intraclass correlation coefficient values (ICC) of the Chinese version of the OHIP-5 were 0.868, 0.831, respectively. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that the one-factor model provided an acceptable fit to the data. The fit indices were: the chi-square fit statistics/degree of freedom (χ ²/df)=2.419, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI)=0.995, the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)= 0.960, the normed fit index (NFI)=0.996, the incremental fit index (IFI)=0.997, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)= 0.985, the comparative fit index (CFI)=0.997, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.070. For the convergent validity of the scale, the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was 0.674. Conclusion The Chinese version of OHIP-5 had a good reliability and validity by rigorous psychometric properties. Overall, it can be further promoted in clinical research and epidemiological investigations.

Key words: oral health impact profile, reliability, validity

中图分类号:

R780.1

吕灏, 何福明. 5条目口腔健康影响程度量表中文版的信度和效度研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2020, 38(2): 145-148.

Lü Hao, He Fuming. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the 5-item oral health impact profile[J]. West China Journal of Stomatology, 2020, 38(2): 145-148.

图/表 4

表1

表2

表3

图1

参考文献 10

[1]	Glick M, Williams DM, Kleinman DV , et al. A new definition for oral health developed by the FDI World Dental Federation opens the door to a universal definition of oral health[J]. Int Dent J, 2016,66(6):322-324.
[2]	Sischo L, Broder HL . Oral health-related quality of life: what, why, how, and future implications[J]. J Dent Res, 2011,90(11):1264-1270.
[3]	辛蔚妮, 凌均棨 . 口腔健康影响程度量表的验证研究[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2006,41(4):242-245.
	Xin WN, Ling JQ . Validation of a Chinese version of the oral health impact profile-14[J]. Chin J Stomatol, 2006,41(4):242-245.
[4]	Bäumer A, Kappesz D, Ozga AK , et al. Oral health-related quality of life and standard of treatment in aggressive periodontitis patients more than 5 years after therapy[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2018,45(11):1347-1355.
[5]	Ni J, Song S, Zhou N . Impact of surgical orthodontic treatment on quality of life in Chinese young adults with class Ⅲ malocclusion: a longitudinal study[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2019,19(1):109.
[6]	John MT, Miglioretti DL, LeResche L , et al. German short forms of the Oral Health Impact Profile[J]. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 2006,34(4):277-288.
[7]	Naik A, John MT, Kohli N , et al. Validation of the English-language version of 5-item Oral Health Impact Profile[J]. J Prosthodont Res, 2016,60(2):85-91.
[8]	Alhajj MN, Halboub E, Khalifa N , et al. Translation and validation of the Arabic version of the 5-item Oral health impact profile: OHIP5-Ar[J]. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2018,16(1):218.
[9]	Larsson P, John MT, Hakeberg M , et al. General population norms of the Swedish short forms of oral health impact profile[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2014,41(4):275-281.
[10]	Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D . Cross cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measuures: literature and proposed guidelines[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 1993,46:1417-1432.

条目	得分		校正后的条目-量表间相关系数	预删除该项后量表的α系数
条目	均数	标准差	校正后的条目-量表间相关系数	预删除该项后量表的α系数
1.咬或咀嚼食物时有困难	2.09	0.92	0.685	0.857
2.出现过明显疼痛	1.59	0.71	0.708	0.820
3.吃东西感到不舒服	1.64	0.77	0.800	0.795
4.味觉变差	1.54	0.75	0.778	0.801
5.难以完成日常工作	1.56	0.77	0.779	0.800

条目	重测信度系数	95%可信区间	r_s*
1. 咬或咀嚼食物时有困难	0.804	0.686~0.897	0.650**
2. 出现过明显疼痛	0.823	0.675~0.910	0.642**
3. 吃东西感到不舒服	0.847	0.622~0.921	0.689**
4. 味觉变差	0.811	0.693~0.905	0.592**
5. 难以完成日常工作	0.825	0.684~0.904	0.703**
总分	0.831	0.689~0.919	0.674**

项目	χ²/df	GFI	AGFI	NFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
参考标准	2~3	>0.85	>0.8	>0.8	>0.8	>0.9	>0.9	<0.08
初始模型	3.451*	0.923	0.770*	0.941	0.943	0.886*	0.943	0.192*
修正模型	2.419	0.995	0.960	0.996	0.997	0.985	0.997	0.070

5条目口腔健康影响程度量表中文版的信度和效度研究

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the 5-item oral health impact profile

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 10

相关文章 5

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	陈丽先, 曾妮, 石冰, 黄汉尧. Asher-McDade鼻唇评价量表的汉化及信效度初步研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(1): 97-103.
[2]	曾心怡, 程斌, 张琳, 郭雨璇, 李依玲, 邹静, 王艳. 中文版8~10岁儿童感知问卷建立及信度与效度研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2022, 40(1): 75-79.
[3]	王琳杨小竺陈方淳. 口腔黏膜病问卷中文版的信度和效度评价[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2014, 32(6): 584-587.
[4]	苏乃川吕俊李春洁陈良萍史宗道. 多系统评价评估问卷量表在口腔医学领域中文系统评价应用中的信度和效度评价[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2013, 31(1): 49-52.
[5]	左雯鑫李晓宇陈艳卿彭宏. 口腔扁平苔藓患者口腔健康相关生活质量的初步研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2012, 30(1): 40-44.