Validity and Reliability of the Arabic Version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire for Yemeni Adolescents
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Linguistic Validation
2.1.1. Forward Translation
2.1.2. Synthesis of Translations
2.1.3. Back Translation
2.1.4. Committee Review
2.1.5. Assessment by Appointed Evaluators
2.2. Pilot Test: Qualitative Interview
2.3. Comprehensibility Assessment
2.4. Testing of Response Format
2.5. Psychometric Validation
2.6. Statistical Analysis
2.6.1. Factor Analysis
2.6.2. Reliability and Validity
3. Results
3.1. Psychometric Validation
3.1.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.1.2. Factor Analysis
3.1.3. Internal Consistency
3.1.4. Validity
Concurrent Criterion Validity
Construct Validity
Discriminant Validity
Floor and/or Ceiling Effects
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Majid, Z.S.A.; Abidia, R.F. Effects of malocclusion on oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL): A critical review. Eur. Sci. J. 2015, 11. Available online: http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/6007 (accessed on 16 July 2020).
- Liu, B.C.; Lee, I.C.; Lo, L.J.; Ko, E.W. Investigate the oral health impact and quality of life on patients with malocclusion of different treatment needs. Biomed. J. 2019, 42, 422–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masood, Y.; Masood, M.; Zainul, N.N.; Araby, N.B.; Hussain, S.F.; Newton, T. Impact of malocclusion on oral health related quality of life in young people. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2013, 11, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johny, A.; Rajkumar, B.; Nagalakshmi, S.; Kumar, R.R.; Vinoth, S.; Dayanithi, D. Effect of malocclusion severity on oral health-related quality of life and food intake ability in orthodontic patients. Int. J. Orthod. Rehabil. 2018, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira-Andrade, R.G.; Paiva, S.; Marques, L.S. Impact of malocclusions on quality of life from childhood to adulthood. Iss. Contemp. Orthod 2015, 3, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Onyeaso, C.O.; Aderinokun, G.A. The relationship between dental aesthetic index (DAI) and perceptions of aesthetics, function and speech amongst secondary school children in Ibadan, Nigeria. Int. J. Paediatr Dent. 2003, 13, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richmond, S.; Shaw, W.; O’Brien, K. The use of occlusal indices: A European perspective. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1995, 107, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Oliveira, C.; Sheiham, A.; Tsakos, G.; O’Brien, K. Oral health-related quality of life and the IOTN index as predictors of children’s perceived needs and acceptance for orthodontic treatment. Br. Dent. J. 2008, 204, E12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klages, U.; Bruckner, A.; Zentner, A. Dental aesthetics, self-awareness, and oral health-related quality of life in young adults. Eur. J. Orthod. 2004, 26, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klages, U.; Claus, N.; Wehrbein, H.; Zentner, A. Development of a questionnaire for assessment of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics in young adults. Eur. J. Orthod. 2006, 28, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Proffit, W.R.; Miguel, J.A. The duration and sequencing of surgical-orthodontic treatment. Int. J. Adult Orthodon. Orthognath. Surg. 1995, 10, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Klages, U.; Erbe, C.; Sandru, S.D.; Brullman, D.; Wehrbein, H. Psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics in adolescence: Validity and reliability of a questionnaire across age-groups. Qual. Life Res. 2015, 24, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bellot-Arcis, C.; Montiel-Company, J.M.; Almerich-Silla, J.M. Psychosocial impact of malocclusion in Spanish adolescents. Korean J. Orthod. 2013, 43, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Montiel-Company, J.M.; Bellot-Arcis, C.; Almerich-Silla, J.M. Validation of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire (Pidaq) in Spanish adolescents. Med. Oral. Patol. Oral. Cir. Bucal. 2013, 18, e168–e173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan Hassan, W.N.; Yusof, Z.Y.; Shahidan, S.S.; Ali, S.F.; Makhbul, M.Z. Validation and reliability of the translated Malay version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire for adolescents. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2017, 15, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naseri, N.; Baherimoghadam, T.; Rasooli, R.; Hamzeh, M.; Merikh, F. Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2019, 17, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Goranson, E.; Norevall, L.I.; Bagesund, M.; Dimberg, L. Translation and validation of the Swedish version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ) for adolescents. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klages, U.; Bruckner, A.; Guld, Y.; Zentner, A. Dental esthetics, orthodontic treatment, and oral-health attitudes in young adults. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2005, 128, 442–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunningham, S.J.; Gilthorpe, M.S.; Hunt, N.P. Are pre-treatment psychological characteristics influenced by pre-surgical orthodontics? Eur. J. Orthod. 2001, 23, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Maqtari, R.A.S. Malocclusion Status and Orthodontic Treatment Needs of 14-Year Old Yemeni Adolescents. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Acquadro, C.; Conway, K.; Hareendran, A.; Aaronson, N.; Issues, E.R.; European Regulatory Issues and Quality of Life Assessment (ERIQA) Group. Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health 2008, 11, 509–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Terwee, C.B.; Bot, S.D.; de Boer, M.R.; van der Windt, D.A.; Knol, D.L.; Dekker, J.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2007, 60, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Herdman, M.; Fox-Rushby, J.; Badia, X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: The universalist approach. Qual. Life Res. 1998, 7, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillemin, F.; Bombardier, C.; Beaton, D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1993, 46, 1417–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osiri, M.; Wongchinsri, J.; Ukritchon, S.; Hanvivadhanakul, P.; Kasitanon, N.; Siripaitoon, B. Comprehensibility, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Thai version of the Health Assessment Questionnaire in Thai patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2009, 11, R129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Espeland, L.V.; Stenvik, A. Perception of personal dental appearance in young adults: Relationship between occlusion, awareness, and satisfaction. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1991, 100, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McHugh, M.L. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb) 2012, 22, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, A. Discopering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yusof, Z.Y.M.; Jaafar, N. Development of a health promotion questionnaire index (HPQI) to measure doktor muda (junior doctor) programme impact on schoolchildren’s oral health knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. Ann. Dent. Univ. Malaya 2013, 20, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, D.W. In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2002, 28, 1629–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabrigar, L.R.; Wegener, D.T.; MacCallum, R.C.; Strahan, E.J. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 1999, 4, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarstedt, M.; Mooi, E. A concise guide to market research. Process Data 2014, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schermelleh-Engel, K.; Moosbrugger, H.; Müller, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol. Res. Online 2003, 8, 23–74. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (Multivariate Applications Series), 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bland, J.M.; Altman, D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 327, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurelhuda, N.M.; Ahmed, M.F.; Trovik, T.A.; Astrom, A.N. Evaluation of oral health-related quality of life among Sudanese schoolchildren using Child-OIDP inventory. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2010, 8, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bernabé, E.; de Oliveira, C.M.; Sheiham, A. Comparison of the discriminative ability of a generic and a condition-specific OHRQoL measure in adolescents with and without normative need for orthodontic treatment. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2008, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wan Hassan, W.N.; Yusof, Z.Y.; Makhbul, M.Z.; Shahidan, S.S.; Mohd Ali, S.F.; Burhanudin, R.; Gere, M.J. Validation and reliability of the Malaysian English version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire for adolescents. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2017, 15, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taherdoost, H. Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. How Test Valid. Quest. /Surv. Res. (10 August 2016) 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Revised Edition; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, G.W.; Rensvold, R.B. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Modeling 2002, 9, 233–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meade, A.W.; Bauer, D.J. Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Modeling Multidiscip. J. 2007, 14, 611–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bucci, R.; Rongo, R.; Zito, E.; Valletta, R.; Michelotti, A.; D’anto, V. Translation and validation of the italian version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (pidaq) among adolescents. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2017, 18, 158–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.; Quan, C.; Guo, C.; Zhou, C.; Wang, Y.; Bao, B. Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire. Eur. J. Orthod. 2013, 35, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bucci, R.; Rongo, R.; Zito, E.; Galeotti, A.; Valletta, R.; D’Anto, V. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ). Qual. Life Res. 2015, 24, 747–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spalj, S.; Lajnert, V.; Ivankovic, L. The psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire--translation and cross-cultural validation in Croatia. Qual. Life Res. 2014, 23, 1267–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singh, V.P.; Singh, R. Translation and validation of a Nepalese version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetic Questionnaire (PIDAQ). J. Orthod. 2014, 41, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Santos, P.M.; Gonçalves, A.R.; Marega, T. Validity of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire for use on Brazilian adolescents. Dental. Press J. Orthod. 2016, 21, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sardenberg, F.; Oliveira, A.C.; Paiva, S.M.; Auad, S.M.; Vale, M.P. Validity and reliability of the Brazilian version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire. Eur. J. Orthod. 2011, 33, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourzgui, F.; Serhier, Z.; Sebbar, M.; Diouny, S.; Bennani Othmani, M.; Ngom, P.I. Adaptation and validation of the Moroccan Arabic version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ). Saudi Dent. J. 2015, 27, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Dimension | Principal Component Analysis | ||
---|---|---|---|
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | |
Psychosocial Impact (10 items) | Items 24,20,14,5,13,22,6,9,3,11 (Factor loadings = 0.38–0.92) | ||
Dental Self-Confidence (6 items) | Items 21,4,23,17,12,7 (Factor loadings = 0.71–0.85) | ||
Aesthetic Concern (8 items) | Items 16,10,1,19,2,15,18,8 (Factor loadings = 0.40–0.95) |
MODEL 1 | MODEL 2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
(Baseline Configural Model) | |||
N | 312 | 137 | 175 |
Age-group | 12–17 years | 12–14 years | 15–17 years |
Fit Indices | |||
CFI | 0.928 | 0.906 | |
RMSEA | 0.071 (0.064–0.78) | 0.058 (0.053–0.063) | |
Items in Brief | Factor loading | Factor loading | |
DSC | |||
4. Proud of own teeth | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.77 |
7. Like to show their teeth | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.68 |
12. Pleased to see own teeth in mirror | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.80 |
17. Teeth look nice to others | 0.69 | 0.71 | 0.68 |
21. Satisfied with own teeth’s appearance | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.85 |
23. Find own teeth nice | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.85 |
PSI | |||
11. Others have nicer teeth | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.63 |
3. Envy others for their teeth | 0.70 | 0.68 | 0.74 |
9. Teasing | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.61 |
6. Distressed because of others’ nice teeth | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.74 |
22. Boys/girls find own teeth ugly | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.81 |
13. People look strange at my teeth | 0.78 | 0.85 | 0.71 |
5. What others think | 0.65 | 0.67 | 0.61 |
14. Shy because of own teeth | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.84 |
20. Wish to look better | 0.67 | 0.58 | 0.74 |
24. Not attractive because of own teeth | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.88 |
AC | |||
8. Don’t like own teeth on photos | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 |
18. Don’t like own teeth on videos | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.76 |
15. Hiding own teeth | 0.72 | 0.75 | 0.79 |
2. Hold back their smile | 0.71 | 0.69 | 0.74 |
19. Stupid comments from others | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.54 |
1. Don’t like own teeth in mirror | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
10. Unhappy about own teeth | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.76 |
16. Feel bad about own teeth | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.90 |
PIDAQ Subscale | N | Cronbach’s α | Scale Statistics | Inter-Item Correlations | Item–Total Correlation | Cronbach’s α if Item Deleted | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | Min | Max | Min | Max | ||||
12–14 years | ||||||||||
DSC | 174 | 0.91(0.87–0.92) | 19.21 | 6.30 | 3.20 | 0.48 | 0.77 | 0.65 | 0.81 | 0.88–0.90 |
PSI | 174 | 0.93(0.86–0.93) | 22.71 | 10.01 | 2.27 | 0.37 | 0.79 | 0.56 | 0.84 | 0.91–0.92 |
AC | 174 | 0.91(0.88–0.93) | 17.01 | 7.82 | 2.13 | 0.38 | 0.73 | 0.53 | 0.80 | 0.89–0.91 |
15–17 years | ||||||||||
DSC | 211 | 0.90(0.88–0.92) | 19.23 | 6.41 | 3.21 | 0.52 | 0.80 | 0.66 | 0.80 | 0.88–0.90 |
PSI | 211 | 0.92(0.85–0.92) | 21.94 | 9.37 | 2.19 | 0.35 | 0.73 | 0.59 | 0.80 | 0.90–0.92 |
AC | 213 | 0.91(0.88–0.92) | 16.22 | 7.12 | 2.03 | 0.34 | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.84 | 0.88–0.91 |
12–17 years | ||||||||||
DSC | 385 | 0.90(0.88–0.91) | 19.22 | 6.35 | 3.20 | 0.52 | 0.78 | 0.66 | 0.80 | 0.88–0.90 |
PSI | 385 | 0.92(0.86–0.92) | 22.29 | 9.66 | 2.23 | 0.38 | 0.74 | 0.62 | 0.81 | 0.91–0.92 |
AC | 385 | 0.91(0.89–0.92) | 16.58 | 7.45 | 2.07 | 0.36 | 0.73 | 0.52 | 0.81 | 0.89–0.91 |
PIDAQ | ICC Agreement | Paired T-Test | Bland and Altman | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subscale | (95% CI) | (SEM) | SDC | MDiff | (SD) | 95% Limits of Agreement | ||
Lower | Upper | %Within Limits | ||||||
12–14 years (40) | ||||||||
DSC | 0.89 (0.78–0.94) | 2.53 | 7.01 | −1.03 | (3.59) | −8.06 | 6.01 | 95.0 |
PSI | 0.91 (0.81–0.95) | 3.60 | 9.98 | −2.05 * | (5.10) | −12.05 | 7.95 | 97.5 |
AC | 0.92 (0.85–0.96) | 2.99 | 8.29 | −0.63 | (4.24) | −8.47 | 6.97 | 90.0 |
15–17 years (76) | ||||||||
DSC | 0.91 (0.85–0.94) | 2.23 | 6.18 | −0.30 | (3.16) | −6.50 | 5.90 | 96.1 |
PSI | 0.93 (0.89–0.96) | 3.02 | 8.37 | −0.21 | (4.27) | −8.58 | 8.16 | 96.1 |
AC | 0.96 (0.94–0.97) | 1.63 | 4.51 | 0.07 | (2.31) | −4.47 | 4.60 | 93.4 |
12–17 years (116) | ||||||||
DSC | 0.90 (0.85–0.93) | 2.34 | 6.49 | −0.55 | (3.32) | −7.06 | 5.95 | 96.6 |
PSI | 0.92 (0.88–0.94) | 3.28 | 9.09 | −0.84 | (4.64) | −9.94 | 8.25 | 94.8 |
AC | 0.94 (0.92–0.96) | 2.20 | 6.10 | −0.17 | (3.12) | −6.29 | 5.94 | 93.1 |
PIDAQ Subscale | Child-OIDP Prevalence | N | Mann–Whitney U | Pearson Correlation | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PIDAQ Scores | p Value | Child-OIDP Performance | p Value | |||||||
Mean | SD | Quartiles | ||||||||
Lower | Middle | Upper | ||||||||
12–17 years | ||||||||||
DSC | No | 200 | 14.98 | 5.09 | 11.00 | 14.00 | 19.00 | 0.000 ** | 0.61 | 0.000 ** |
Yes | 185 | 23.81 | 3.93 | 22.00 | 24.00 | 27.00 | ||||
PSI | No | 200 | 15.97 | 4.99 | 12.00 | 15.00 | 18.00 | 0.000 ** | 0.58 | 0.000 ** |
Yes | 185 | 29.12 | 8.80 | 22.00 | 29.00 | 35.00 | ||||
AC | No | 200 | 11.99 | 3.01 | 10.00 | 12.00 | 14.00 | 0.000 ** | 0.55 | 0.000 ** |
Yes | 185 | 21.54 | 7.64 | 15.00 | 19.00 | 28.00 | ||||
15–17 years | ||||||||||
DSC | No | 112 | 15.09 | 5.43 | 11.00 | 14.00 | 20.00 | 0.000 ** | 0.61 | 0.000 ** |
Yes | 99 | 23.91 | 3.59 | 22.00 | 24.00 | 27.00 | ||||
PSI | No | 112 | 15.89 | 5.06 | 12.00 | 14.50 | 19.75 | 0.000 ** | 0.58 | 0.000 ** |
Yes | 99 | 28.79 | 8.37 | 23.00 | 29.00 | 35.00 | ||||
AC | No | 112 | 11.97 | 3.17 | 10.00 | 12.00 | 14.00 | 0.000 ** | 0.52 | 0.000 ** |
Yes | 99 | 21.03 | 7.31 | 15.00 | 19.00 | 27.00 | ||||
12–14 years | ||||||||||
DSC | No | 88 | 14.84 | 4.66 | 11.00 | 14.00 | 18.00 | 0.000 ** | 0.63 | 0.000 ** |
Yes | 86 | 23.69 | 4.32 | 21.00 | 24.00 | 27.00 | ||||
PSI | No | 88 | 16.06 | 4.93 | 13.00 | 15.00 | 18.00 | 0.000 ** | 0.60 | 0.000 ** |
Yes | 86 | 29.52 | 9.29 | 22.00 | 29.00 | 36.00 | ||||
AC | No | 88 | 12.01 | 2.81 | 10.00 | 11.50 | 14.00 | 0.000 ** | 0.59 | 0.000 ** |
Yes | 86 | 22.12 | 8.01 | 15.00 | 19.50 | 30.00 |
PIDAQ Variables | Rate Appearance | N | PIDAQ Scores | p Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Quartiles | ||||||
Lower | Middle | Upper | ||||||
12–14 years | ||||||||
DSC | Excellent | 48 | 13.02 | 4.03 | 10.00 | 13.00 | 15.75 | 0.000 ** |
Good | 57 | 18.18 | 4.60 | 13.50 | 19.00 | 22.00 | ||
Average | 43 | 22.51 | 3.99 | 20.00 | 23.00 | 25.00 | ||
Poor | 26 | 27.46 | 2.16 | 26.00 | 27.00 | 29.25 | ||
PSI | Excellent | 48 | 14.48 | 3.68 | 12.00 | 13.00 | 16.00 | 0.000 ** |
Good | 57 | 19.42 | 5.62 | 15.00 | 18.00 | 22.50 | ||
Average | 43 | 26.02 | 7.16 | 21.00 | 26.00 | 31.00 | ||
Poor | 26 | 39.65 | 6.25 | 34.00 | 39.00 | 45.25 | ||
AC | Excellent | 48 | 11.63 | 2.47 | 10.00 | 11.00 | 13.75 | 0.000 ** |
Good | 57 | 14.28 | 4.65 | 10.00 | 14.00 | 16.00 | ||
Average | 43 | 18.40 | 6.01 | 14.00 | 17.00 | 20.00 | ||
Poor | 26 | 30.62 | 5.86 | 28.00 | 31.00 | 34.00 | ||
15–17 years | ||||||||
DSC | Excellent | 52 | 11.63 | 4.24 | 9.00 | 11.00 | 14.00 | 0.000 ** |
Good | 58 | 18.02 | 4.54 | 14.00 | 18.00 | 21.00 | ||
Average | 66 | 22.26 | 3.17 | 20.75 | 22.00 | 24.00 | ||
Poor | 35 | 26.80 | 2.31 | 26.00 | 27.00 | 28.00 | ||
PSI | Excellent | 52 | 13.44 | 3.04 | 11.00 | 12.50 | 15.00 | 0.000 ** |
Good | 58 | 17.52 | 5.41 | 13.00 | 16.50 | 21.25 | ||
Average | 66 | 25.18 | 6.82 | 20.75 | 25.00 | 29.25 | ||
Poor | 35 | 35.80 | 5.35 | 32.00 | 35.00 | 40.00 | ||
AC | Excellent | 52 | 10.46 | 2.15 | 9.00 | 10.00 | 12.00 | 0.000 ** |
Good | 58 | 13.19 | 3.23 | 11.00 | 13.00 | 15.00 | ||
Average | 66 | 17.44 | 5.41 | 13.00 | 17.00 | 21.25 | ||
Poor | 35 | 27.51 | 5.73 | 25.00 | 28.00 | 30.00 | ||
12–17 years | ||||||||
DSC | Excellent | 100 | 12.30 | 4.18 | 9.00 | 12.00 | 14.00 | 0.000 ** |
Good | 115 | 18.10 | 4.55 | 14.00 | 19.00 | 22.00 | ||
Average | 109 | 22.36 | 3.50 | 20.00 | 23.00 | 25.00 | ||
Poor | 61 | 27.08 | 2.25 | 26.00 | 27.00 | 29.00 | ||
PSI | Excellent | 100 | 13.94 | 3.39 | 11.00 | 13.00 | 16.00 | 0.000 ** |
Good | 115 | 18.46 | 5.57 | 14.00 | 18.00 | 22.00 | ||
Average | 109 | 25.51 | 6.94 | 21.00 | 25.00 | 30.00 | ||
Poor | 61 | 37.44 | 6.02 | 32.00 | 36.00 | 43.00 | ||
AC | Excellent | 100 | 11.02 | 2.37 | 9.00 | 10.00 | 13.00 | 0.000 ** |
Good | 115 | 13.73 | 4.01 | 11.00 | 13.00 | 16.00 | ||
Average | 109 | 17.82 | 5.65 | 14.00 | 17.00 | 21.00 | ||
Poor | 61 | 28.84 | 5.94 | 25.00 | 29.00 | 33.00 |
Subscale | Rate Satisfaction | N | PIDAQ Scores | p Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Quartiles | ||||||
12–14 years | Lower | Middle | Upper | |||||
DSC | Very satisfied | 36 | 12.72 | 3.95 | 10.00 | 12.00 | 15.75 | 0.000 ** |
Satisfied | 62 | 17.00 | 4.63 | 13.00 | 17.00 | 21.00 | ||
Dissatisfied | 49 | 22.20 | 4.02 | 20.00 | 23.00 | 25.00 | ||
Very dissatisfied | 27 | 27.52 | 2.17 | 26.00 | 27.00 | 30.00 | ||
PSI | Very satisfied | 36 | 14.06 | 3.36 | 12.00 | 13.00 | 15.00 | 0.000 ** |
Satisfied | 62 | 18.05 | 5.09 | 14.00 | 18.00 | 21.25 | ||
Dissatisfied | 49 | 25.73 | 6.85 | 19.50 | 26.00 | 31.00 | ||
Very dissatisfied | 27 | 39.48 | 6.29 | 34.00 | 39.00 | 45.00 | ||
AC | Very satisfied | 36 | 11.11 | 2.12 | 10.00 | 11.00 | 13.00 | 0.000 ** |
Satisfied | 62 | 13.45 | 3.87 | 10.00 | 13.00 | 16.00 | ||
Dissatisfied | 49 | 18.63 | 5.86 | 14.50 | 18.00 | 21.00 | ||
Very dissatisfied | 27 | 30.07 | 6.48 | 28.00 | 31.00 | 34.00 | ||
15–17 years | ||||||||
DSC | Very satisfied | 55 | 11.87 | 4.01 | 9.00 | 11.00 | 14.00 | 0.000 ** |
Satisfied | 53 | 18.11 | 4.81 | 14.00 | 18.00 | 21.00 | ||
Dissatisfied | 70 | 22.71 | 3.12 | 21.00 | 23.00 | 25.00 | ||
Very dissatisfied | 33 | 25.88 | 4.04 | 25.00 | 27.00 | 28.00 | ||
PSI | Very satisfied | 55 | 13.22 | 3.07 | 11.00 | 12.00 | 15.00 | 0.000 ** |
Satisfied | 53 | 17.94 | 4.98 | 14.00 | 17.00 | 21.00 | ||
Dissatisfied | 70 | 25.34 | 6.63 | 21.00 | 25.50 | 30.00 | ||
Very dissatisfied | 33 | 35.70 | 6.90 | 31.50 | 35.00 | 41.00 | ||
AC | Very satisfied | 55 | 10.16 | 2.08 | 8.00 | 10.00 | 11.00 | 0.000 ** |
Satisfied | 53 | 13.47 | 2.80 | 12.00 | 13.00 | 15.00 | ||
Dissatisfied | 70 | 17.70 | 5.57 | 13.00 | 17.00 | 21.25 | ||
Very dissatisfied | 33 | 27.61 | 5.68 | 25.00 | 28.00 | 31.50 | ||
12–17 years | ||||||||
DSC | Very satisfied | 91 | 12.21 | 3.98 | 9.00 | 12.00 | 14.00 | 0.000 ** |
Satisfied | 115 | 17.51 | 4.73 | 14.00 | 18.00 | 21.00 | ||
Dissatisfied | 119 | 22.50 | 3.51 | 20.00 | 23.00 | 25.00 | ||
Very dissatisfied | 60 | 26.62 | 3.41 | 26.00 | 27.00 | 29.00 | ||
PSI | Very satisfied | 91 | 13.55 | 3.20 | 11.00 | 13.00 | 15.00 | 0.000 ** |
Satisfied | 115 | 18.00 | 5.02 | 14.00 | 18.00 | 21.00 | ||
Dissatisfied | 119 | 25.50 | 6.70 | 21.00 | 26.00 | 30.00 | ||
Very dissatisfied | 60 | 37.40 | 6.85 | 32.00 | 36.50 | 43.00 | ||
AC | Very satisfied | 91 | 10.54 | 2.14 | 9.00 | 10.00 | 12.00 | 0.000 ** |
Satisfied | 115 | 13.46 | 3.40 | 11.00 | 13.00 | 15.00 | ||
Dissatisfied | 119 | 18.08 | 5.69 | 14.00 | 17.00 | 21.00 | ||
Very dissatisfied | 60 | 28.72 | 6.13 | 25.00 | 29.00 | 33.00 |
Self-Rated Malocclusion Index (MI-S) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age Group | 12–14 Years | 15–17 Years | 12–17 Years | |||||||||
Quartile | Lower (Slight) | Upper (Severe) | Effect Size | p Value | Lower (Slight) | Upper (Severe) | Effect Size | p Value | Lower (Slight) | Upper (Severe) | Effect Size | p Value |
N | 62 | 62 | 60 | 67 | 122 | 129 | ||||||
PIDAQ Subscale | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||||||
DSC | 14.71 (4.98) | 25.13 (3.48) | −2.43 | ** | 13.15 (4.70) | 25.04 (3.48) | −2.88 | ** | 13.94 (4.88 | 25.08 (3.46) | −2.63 | ** |
PSI | 15.73 (4.70) | 32.24 (9.36) | −2.23 | ** | 14.23 (4.03) | 31.01 (8.25) | −2.58 | ** | 14.99 (4.43) | 31.60 (8.79) | −2.39 | ** |
AC | 11.98 (3.05) | 24.53 (7.84) | −2.11 | ** | 10.70 (2.34) | 23.60 (7.27) | −2.39 | ** | 11.35 (2.79) | 24.05 (7.54) | −2.23 | ** |
Investigator-Rated Index (MI-D) | ||||||||||||
Age Group | 12–14 Years | 15–17 Years | 12–17 Years | |||||||||
Quartile | Lower (Slight) | Upper (Severe) | Effect Size | p Value | Lower (Slight) | Upper (Severe) | Effect Size | p Value | Lower (Slight) | Upper (Severe) | Effect Size | p Value |
N | 56 | 46 | 65 | 84 | 121 | 130 | ||||||
PIDAQ Subscale | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||||||
DSC | 15.30 (4.74) | 21.24 (6.29) | −1.07 | ** | 15.65 (5.98) | 21.37 (6.15) | −0.94 | ** | 15.49 (5.42) | 21.32 (6.18) | −1.00 | ** |
PSI | 17.20 (5.54) | 26.48 (9.83) | −1.16 | ** | 17.51 (7.17) | 24.50 (9.55) | −0.83 | ** | 17.36 (6.44) | 25.20 (9.66) | −0.96 | ** |
AC | 13.05 (3.15) | 19.15 (7.88) | −1.02 | ** | 13.74 (6.09) | 17.81 (7.64) | −0.59 | ** | 13.42 (4.95) | 18.28 (7.73) | −0.75 | ** |
PIDAQ Variables | Need Braces | N | PIDAQ Scores | p Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Quartiles | ||||||
Lower | Middle | Upper | ||||||
12–14 years | ||||||||
DSC | Yes | 81 | 23.96 | 4.20 | 22 | 24 | 27 | 0.000 ** |
No | 93 | 15.08 | 4.71 | 11.50 | 15 | 19 | ||
PSI | Yes | 81 | 29.61 | 9.70 | 22 | 29 | 38 | 0.000 ** |
No | 93 | 16.69 | 5.28 | 13 | 15 | 19 | ||
AC | Yes | 81 | 22.28 | 8.24 | 15 | 20 | 30 | 0.000 ** |
No | 93 | 12.41 | 3.17 | 10 | 12 | 15 | ||
15–17 years | ||||||||
DSC | Yes | 118 | 22.89 | 4.32 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 0.000 ** |
No | 93 | 14.58 | 5.56 | 10 | 14 | 20 | ||
PSI | Yes | 118 | 26.64 | 8.74 | 19.75 | 27 | 33 | 0.000 ** |
No | 93 | 15.98 | 6.25 | 12 | 14 | 18 | ||
AC | Yes | 118 | 19.68 | 7.15 | 14 | 18 | 25 | 0.000 ** |
No | 93 | 11.84 | 4.03 | 9 | 11 | 13 | ||
12–17 years | ||||||||
DSC | Yes | 199 | 23.33 | 4.29 | 21 | 24 | 27 | 0.000 ** |
No | 186 | 14.83 | 5.15 | 11 | 14 | 19 | ||
PSI | Yes | 199 | 27.85 | 9.24 | 21 | 28 | 34 | 0.000 ** |
No | 186 | 16.33 | 5.78 | 12 | 15 | 19 | ||
AC | Yes | 199 | 20.74 | 7.70 | 14 | 19 | 27 | 0.000 ** |
No | 186 | 12.12 | 3.63 | 10 | 11.50 | 14 |
PIDAQ Variables | Occlusal Traits | N | PIDAQ Scores | p Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Quartiles | ||||||
Lower | Middle | Upper | ||||||
12–14 Years | ||||||||
DSC | No/Little | 22 | 13.18 | 4.12 | 10.75 | 13.50 | 16 | 0.000 ** |
Moderate | 86 | 16.76 | 5.12 | 12.75 | 17 | 21.25 | ||
Great | 61 | 24.30 | 4.30 | 22 | 25 | 28 | ||
Very great | 5 | 26.00 | 3.67 | 23 | 27 | 28.50 | ||
PSI | No/Little | 22 | 14.77 | 4.08 | 12.75 | 13.50 | 16.50 | 0.000 ** |
Moderate | 86 | 18.19 | 5.90 | 13 | 17 | 22 | ||
Great | 61 | 30.33 | 9.27 | 22.50 | 31 | 38 | ||
Very great | 5 | 42.60 | 7.16 | 36.50 | 43 | 48.50 | ||
AC | No/Little | 22 | 11.59 | 2.68 | 10 | 10.50 | 14 | 0.000 ** |
Moderate | 86 | 13.30 | 4.06 | 10 | 13 | 15 | ||
Great | 61 | 22.89 | 7.88 | 16 | 21 | 30 | ||
Very great | 5 | 32.80 | 5.50 | 28 | 31 | 38.50 | ||
15–17 years | ||||||||
DSC | No/Little | 43 | 12.84 | 4.96 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 0.000 ** |
Moderate | 100 | 18.28 | 5.16 | 13.25 | 19 | 22 | ||
Great | 59 | 24.22 | 4.10 | 22 | 25 | 27 | ||
Very great | 9 | 27.56 | 2.01 | 26 | 28 | 29.50 | ||
PSI | No/Little | 43 | 14.30 | 4.16 | 11 | 13 | 16 | 0.000 ** |
Moderate | 100 | 19.08 | 6.21 | 14 | 18 | 23.75 | ||
Great | 59 | 30.25 | 8.64 | 25 | 32 | 36 | ||
Very great | 9 | 35.78 | 7.41 | 31 | 34 | 43.50 | ||
AC | No/Little | 43 | 10.79 | 2.82 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 0.000 ** |
Moderate | 100 | 13.82 | 3.99 | 11 | 13 | 16 | ||
Great | 59 | 22.83 | 7.41 | 17 | 24 | 29 | ||
Very great | 9 | 25.56 | 6.77 | 21 | 25 | 30.50 | ||
12–17 years | ||||||||
DSC | No/Little | 65 | 12.95 | 4.67 | 10 | 12 | 16 | 0.000 ** |
Moderate | 186 | 17.58 | 5.18 | 13 | 18 | 22 | ||
Great | 120 | 24.26 | 4.19 | 22 | 25 | 27 | ||
Very great | 14 | 27.00 | 2.69 | 26 | 27 | 29.25 | ||
PSI | No/Little | 65 | 14.46 | 4.11 | 11 | 13 | 16 | 0.000 ** |
Moderate | 186 | 18.67 | 6.07 | 13.75 | 18 | 23 | ||
Great | 120 | 30.29 | 8.93 | 24 | 31 | 36 | ||
Very great | 14 | 38.21 | 7.82 | 31 | 39 | 44.50 | ||
AC | No/Little | 65 | 11.06 | 2.78 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 0.000 ** |
Moderate | 186 | 13.58 | 4.02 | 10 | 13 | 16 | ||
Great | 120 | 22.86 | 7.62 | 16.25 | 21 | 29.75 | ||
Very great | 14 | 28.14 | 7.10 | 24.75 | 27.50 | 33.75 |
PIDAQ | 12–14 Years (N) | 15–17 Years (N) | 12–17 Years (N) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subscale | % Floor | % Ceiling | % Floor | % Ceiling | % Floor | % Ceiling |
DSC | 0.6 | 4.0 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 2.6 |
PSI | 3.4 | 1.1 | 4.7 | 0.5 | 4.2 | 0.3 |
AC | 4.6 | 1.1 | 7.6 | 0.5 | 6.2 | 0.5 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alsanabani, A.A.M.; Yusof, Z.Y.M.; Wan Hassan, W.N.; Aldhorae, K.; Alyamani, H.A. Validity and Reliability of the Arabic Version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire for Yemeni Adolescents. Children 2021, 8, 448. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8060448
Alsanabani AAM, Yusof ZYM, Wan Hassan WN, Aldhorae K, Alyamani HA. Validity and Reliability of the Arabic Version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire for Yemeni Adolescents. Children. 2021; 8(6):448. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8060448
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlsanabani, Amal A. M., Zamros Y. M. Yusof, Wan Nurazreena Wan Hassan, Khalid Aldhorae, and Helmi A. Alyamani. 2021. "Validity and Reliability of the Arabic Version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire for Yemeni Adolescents" Children 8, no. 6: 448. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8060448