Adaptation, reliability and validity of Oral Health literacy instrument for Iranian University students: A new approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of allied medical sciences, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Student, Medical Library and Information Science, Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of allied medical sciences, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, orthodontics, Department of orthodontics, school of dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract

Background and Objective: It is important to use a standardized tool that has standard questions with the power to explain people's abilities and distinguish between them.  This research was conducted with the aim of designing, validating and standardizing the oral health literacy questionnaire among Iranian medical students.

Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study, which was done in the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences in 2021. Pre-validation and post-validation were used for validation. The quality of questions was examined by difficulty and discrimination indices. The pre-validation population included 50 students and 10 experts for validation. Post-validation population includes 354 medical students. SPSS software ver26 and Amos software ver24 were used.

Results: The tool is valid based on face validity, content validity and construct validity. Totally Cronbach`s alpha was 0.768. Explanatory factor analysis showed a model with four factors named “preventive measures”, “dental care”, “oral diseases”, and “care and visit dentist” which can explain 57.07 percentages of oral health literacy variances. Pearson correlation coefficient showed significant correlation between factors. Confirmatory factor analysis showed model is fit and the model fit indices were as follows: IFI= 0.697, CFI= 0.702, NFI= 0.717, AGFI= 0.767, GFI= 0.824, and RMSEA=0.07.
Based on DIF and DI indices, this tool can show the students with correct answers and differentiate the students with high scores from low performing ones. 

Conclusion: The current research tool has paid attention to different aspects of oral health and preventive and care measures. The approved tools include 3 factors and 22 questions. 

Keywords

Availability of data and materials: The datasets used and/or analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflict of interest: There is no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical consideration: In order to comply with research ethics, code IR.AJUMS.REC.1398.477 was received from the National Ethics Committee in Biological Research. The investigator first obtained oral consent form

Funding: financial support from Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences.

Authors' contributions: All authors contributed to this project and article equally. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

1. The Invisible Barrier: Literacy and Its Relationship with Oral Health. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 2005;65(3):174-82.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2005.tb02808.x
PMid:16171263
 
2. Buunk-Werkhoven YAB, Dijkstra A, van der Schans CP. Determinants of oral hygiene behavior: a study based on the theory of planned behavior. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 2011;39(3):250-9.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2010.00589.x
PMid:21070323  
 
3. Guo Y, Logan HL, Dodd VJ, Muller KE, Marks JG, III JLR. Health Literacy: A Pathway to Better Oral Health. American Journal of Public Health. 2014;104(7):e85-e91.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301930
PMid:24832423 PMCid:PMC4056215  
 
4. Naghibi Sistani MM, Montazeri A, Yazdani R, Murtomaa H. New oral health literacy instrument for public health: development and pilot testing. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. 2014;5(4):313-21.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12042
PMid:23559571  
 
5. Lee J, Stucky B, Rozier G, Lee S-Y, Zeldin LP. Oral Health Literacy Assessment: development of an oral health literacy instrument for Spanish speakers. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 2013;73(1):1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.12000
PMid:23215757 PMCid:PMC4082329  
 
6. Sabbahi DA, Lawrence HP, Limeback H, Rootman I. Development and evaluation of an oral health literacy instrument for adults. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 2009;37(5):451-62.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2009.00490.x
PMid:19740249  
 
7. Macek MD, Haynes D, Wells W, Bauer-Leffler S, Cotten PA, Parker RM. Measuring conceptual health knowledge in the context of oral health literacy: preliminary results. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 2010;70(3):197-204.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2010.00165.x
PMid:20337901 PMCid:PMC3612930  
 
8. Wong HM, Bridges SM, Yiu CKY, McGrath CPJ, Au TK, Parthasarathy DS. Validation of the Hong Kong Oral Health Literacy Assessment Task for Paediatric Dentistry (HKOHLAT-P). International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2013;23(5):366-75.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12021
PMid:23947421  
 
9. Cartes-Velásquez RA, Luengo Machuca L. Adaptation and validation of the oral health literacy instrument for the Chilean population. International Dental Journal. 2017;67(4):215-20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12288
PMid:28439904 PMCid:PMC9378920  
 
10. Firmino RT, Granville-Garcia AF, McGrath CP, Bendo CB, Ferreira FM, Paiva SM. Validation for Brazilian Portuguese language of the Hong Kong Oral Health Literacy Assessment Task for Paediatric Dentistry (BOHLAT-P). International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2020;30(2):234-43.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12585
PMid:31628878  
 
11. Stein L, Pettersen KS, Bergdahl M, Bergdahl J. Development and validation of an instrument to assess oral health literacy in Norwegian adult dental patients. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2015;73(7):530-8.
https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2015.1007477
PMid:25652174  
 
12. Ramlay MZ, Saddki N, Tin-Oo MM, Arifin WN. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of Oral Health Literacy Instrument (OHLI) for Malaysian Adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(15):5407.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155407
PMid:32731318 PMCid:PMC7432587  
 
13. Hubbard JP, Clemans WV. Multiple-choice examinations in medicine. A guide for examiner and examinee. Academic Medicine. 1961;36(7):848.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00000441-196109000-00028  
 
14. Loh KY, Elsayed I, Nurjahan M, Roland G. Item difficulty and discrimination index in single best answer MCQ: end of semester examinations at Taylor's clinical school. Redesigning Learning for Greater Social Impact: Springer; 2018. p. 167-71.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4223-2_15  
 
15. Kuechler WL, Simkin MG. Why is performance on multiple‐choice tests and constructed‐response tests not more closely related? Theory and an empirical test. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 2010;8(1):55-73.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2009.00243.x  
 
16. Palmer EJ, Devitt PG. Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper. BMC medical education. 2007;7(1):1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-49
PMid:18045500 PMCid:PMC2148038  
 
17. Tehrani H, Nejatian M, Moshki M, Jafari A. Psychometric properties of Persian version of depression literacy (D-Lit) questionnaire among general population. International Journal of Mental Health Systems. 2022;16(1):1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-022-00550-x
PMid:35962416 PMCid:PMC9372931  
 
18. Considine J, Botti M, Thomas S. Design, format, validity and reliability of multiple choice questions for use in nursing research and education. Collegian. 2005;12(1):19-24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1322-7696(08)60478-3
PMid:16619900  
 
19. Alizadeh-Siuki H, Tehrani H, Gholian-Aval M, Ebrahimipour H, Jafari A, Vahedian-Shahroodi M. Psychometric properties of a questionnaire on brucellosis prevention behaviors based on the precede model among rural farmers and their family members. Risk management and healthcare policy. 2020;13:539.
https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S247356
PMid:32607022 PMCid:PMC7293397  
 
20. Downing SM. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Medical education. 2004;38(9):1006-12.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01932.x
PMid:15327684  
 
21. Tarrant M, Ware J, Mohammed AM. An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis. BMC medical education. 2009;9(1):1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-40
PMid:19580681 PMCid:PMC2713226  
 
22. Mahjabeen W, Alam S, Hassan U, Zafar T, Butt R, Konain S, et al. Difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency in multiple choice questions. Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University. 2017;13(4):310-5.  
 
23. Priya M, Devdas K, Amarlal D, Venkatachalapathy A. Oral health attitudes, knowledge and practice among school children in Chennai, India. Journal of education and Ethics in Dentistry. 2013;3(1):26.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7761.126940  
 
24. Scaglia P, Niknamdeh A. Assessment of current oral health knowledge attitude and oral hygiene practices among 12-year old school children and patients attending the dental facility at Vezo Hospital in the rural village of Andavadoaka, Madagascar. Malmo University. 2017.  
 
25. Ahamed S, Moyin S, Punathil S, Patil NA, Kale VT, Pawar G. Evaluation of the oral health knowledge, attitude and behavior of the preclinical and clinical dental students. Journal of international oral health: JIOH. 2015;7(6):65.  
 
26. Bhat PK, Kumar A. Preventive oral health knowledge, practice and behaviour of patients attending dental institution in Bangalore, India. Journal of International Oral Health. 2010;2(2).  
 
27. Doshi D, Baldava P, Anup N, Sequeira PS. A comparative evaluation of self-reported oral hygiene practices among medical and engineering university students with access to health-promotive dental care. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8(1):68-75.
https://doi.org/10.5005/jcdp-8-1-68
PMid:17211507  
 
28. Mohammadbeigi A, Mohammadsalehi N, Aligol M. Validity and Reliability of the Instruments and Types of MeasurmentS in Health Applied Researches. RUMS_JOURNAL. 2015;13(12):1153-70.  
 
29. Lawshe C. A qualitative approach to content validity. Personnel P sychology. 1 9 7 5; 2 8 (4): 5 6 3-7 5.  
 
30. Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian journal of paramedicine. 2010;8(3).
https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93  
 
31. Helms JE, Henze KT, Sass TL, Mifsud VA. Treating Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients as data in counseling research. The counseling psychologist. 2006;34(5):630-60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288308  
 
32. habibi AA, M. Structural equation modeling and scientific analysis. Iran: jahad-e-daneshgahi publication; 2017.  
 
33. Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. The American journal of medicine. 2006;119(2):166. e7-. e16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036
PMid:16443422  
 
34. AA. S. Evaluation and assessment of educational progeression. Tehran: Agah Publication; 1992.  
 
35. Kristof W. The statistical theory of stepped-up reliability coefficients when a test has been divided into several equivalent parts. Psychometrika. 1963;28(3):221-38.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289571  
 
36. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological methods. 1996;1(2):130.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130  

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics