2018
DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201802008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How to Select a Questionnaire with a Good Methodological Quality?

Abstract: In the last decades, several instruments have been used to evaluate the impact of oral health problems on the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of individuals. However, some instruments lack thorough methodological validation or present conceptual differences that hinder comparisons with instruments. Thus, it can be difficult to clinicians and researchers to select a questionnaire that accurately reflect what are really meaningful to individuals. This short communication aimed to discuss the importa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…MID is the smallest difference that is beneficial to the patient (Jaeschke et al 1989) and determines the meaningful clinical effects of different endodontic treatment approaches (Neelakantan et al 2020). Moreover, validated instruments combined with improved methodological procedures and longer follow-up times are needed to assess the OHRQoL of individuals (Paiva et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MID is the smallest difference that is beneficial to the patient (Jaeschke et al 1989) and determines the meaningful clinical effects of different endodontic treatment approaches (Neelakantan et al 2020). Moreover, validated instruments combined with improved methodological procedures and longer follow-up times are needed to assess the OHRQoL of individuals (Paiva et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The COSMIN was developed via a Delphi study in response to the need for a standardized method to assess measurement studies and consistent application of psychometric definitions. The COSMIN was selected for the purposes of the current review over other checklists due to its advantages of facilitating comparisons between different measurement studies (Paiva et al 2018). The COSMIN is applicable for both Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) studies which are assessed according to 10-psychometric domains of interest, each with varying number of items: (1) internal consistency (11 items), (2) reliability (14 items), (3) measurement error (11 items), (4) content validity (5 items), (5) structural validity (7 items), (6) hypothesis testing (10 items), (7) cross-cultural validity (15 items), (8) criterion validity (7 items), (9) responsiveness (18 items), and (10) interpretability1 (7 items).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To reduce the possibility of response bias, participants were assured that their decision regarding participation in the study would not influence their treatment and that the interviewer had no role in their treatment but acted merely as a “gatekeeper” to collect data. The training was performed using the consensus‐based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist and PowerPoint program in a total of 24 h. The interviewers’ agreement was satisfactory (kappa = 0.90).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…21 Instrument selection was based on the COSMIN checklist, which was developed in an international Delphi study to provide tools for evidence-based instrument selection. 18,19…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%