Abstract
Background
OHIP's original seven-domain structure does not fit empirical data, but a psycho-metrically sound and clinically more plausible structure with the four OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact has emerged. Consequently, use and scoring of available OHIP versions need to be revisited.
Aim
We assessed how well the overall construct OHRQoL and its four dimensions were measured with several OHIP versions (20, 19, 14, and 5 items) to derive recommendations which instruments should be used and how to score them.
Methods
Data came from the "Dimensions of OHRQoL Project" and used the project's learning sample (5,173 prosthodontic patients and general population subjects with 49-item OHIP data). We computed correlations among OHIP versions' summary scores. Correlations between OHRQoL dimensions, on one hand, and OHIP versions' domain scores or OHIP-5's items, on the other hand, were also computed. OHIP use and scoring recommendations were derived for psychometrically solid but also practical OHRQoL assessment.
Results
Summary scores of 5-, 14-, 19- and 49-item versions correlated highly (r = 0.91-0.98), suggesting similar OHRQoL construct measurement across versions. The OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact were best measured by the OHIP do-main scores for Physical Disability, Physical Pain, Psychological Discomfort, and Handicap, respectively.
Conclusion
Recommendations were derived which OHIP should be preferably used and how OHIP versions should be scored to capture the overall construct and the dimensions of OHRQoL. Psychometrically solid and practical OHRQoL assessment in all settings across all oral health conditions can be achieved with the 5-item OHIP.