Next Article in Journal
The Promise of Nanotechnology in Personalized Medicine
Next Article in Special Issue
Morphological Investigation of Mandibular Lingula: A Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Early Intervention in Orbital Floor Fractures: Postoperative Ocular Motility and Diplopia Outcomes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Developing a Biosensor-Based Immunoassay to Detect HPV E6 Oncoprotein in the Saliva Rinse Fluid of Oral Cancer Patients
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Oral Health Values Scale for the Portuguese Population

Vanessa Machado
André Mendonça
Luís Proença
José João Mendes
João Botelho
Daniel W. McNeill
4 and
Ana Sintra Delgado
Clinical Research Unit (CRU), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Egas Moniz—Cooperativa de Ensino Superior, 2829-511 Monte da Caparica, Portugal
Evidence-Based Hub, CiiEM, Egas Moniz—Cooperativa de Ensino Superior, 2829-511 Monte da Caparica, Portugal
Quantitative Methods for Health Research (MQIS), CiiEM, Egas Moniz—Cooperativa de Ensino Superior, 2829-511 Monte da Caparica, Portugal
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
Orthodontic Department, Egas Moniz Dental Clinic (EMDC), Egas Moniz—Cooperativa de Ensino Superior, 2829-511 Monte da Caparica, Portugal
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(5), 672;
Submission received: 31 March 2022 / Revised: 13 April 2022 / Accepted: 20 April 2022 / Published: 22 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Prevention and Management of Oral Healthcare)


Background: To adapt and validate cross-culturally the Oral Health Values (OHVS) questionnaire to Portuguese language. Methods: The OHVS questionnaire was culturally translated and adapted according to international guidelines. We enrolled 280 patients in a population-based epidemiological survey conducted at the Egas Moniz Dental Clinic (Almada, Portugal). The participants answered the Portuguese version of the OHVS (OHVS-PT), which is a 12-item scale with four-factor structure (Professional Dental Care, Appearance and Health, Flossing and Retaining Natural Teeth factor). Psychometric properties were tested using content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability. Results: The OHVS-PT presented adequate reliability (ICC = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86; 0.97, p < 0.001) with values for the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the sub-constructs ranging from 0.92 to 0.98. In the Confirmatory Factor Analysis, the final models presented good fit, with the Comparative Fit Indices ranging from 0.882 to 0.891 and the root-mean-squared error of Approximation between 0.065 and 0.069. Conclusions: The OHVS-PT was shown to be a valid and reliable tool to assess oral health values in a Portuguese population. Further studies should evaluate the psychometric properties of the oral personal representation on dental specialties and its impact on dental appointments and procedures.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The value towards health represents the personal view that each one of us places on health and ultimately influences our priority to engage in particular health behaviors or negligent attitudes [1]. This is particularly relevant in oral health because of the multiple oral health care systems in developing and developed countries. In countries where oral health is integrated in the national health systems, hypothetically this may contribute to a greater value attributed to oral health, whereas in countries where oral health is based on insurance-based systems, the apprehend value may differ. Preventive and tooth-preserving strategies are the gold standard public measures [2], yet patients’ adherence to these strategies strongly depend on how they value such care [3,4,5].
In the Portuguese scenario, oral health care is mainly based on a out-of-pocket health system [6], with limited national oral programs for children, adolescents and vulnerable groups (pregnant women, patients with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and elderly people with low socioeconomic status). This lack of dental services in public hospitals and health centers of the National Health Service [7] may contribute to the high prevalence of oral diseases and support the need for a comprehensive program to assess the personal representation of oral health.
Regarding Oral Health Values (OHV), this is defined as one’s prioritization of or dedication to maintaining or enhancing the particular oral component (gingiva, teeth and orofacial functioning) [8]. Remarkably, the adherence to dental care and appointments is strongly dependent on established OHV [3,4,5], and may have wider repercussions in other health behaviors, such as brushing or interdental cleaning habits, smoking habits or even diet [8].
The OHV Scale (OHVS) is a recently developed instrument to measure the value that a person places on his or her own oral health [8]. The psychometric properties of this short tool were attested and correlated with other validated questionnaires such as Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14) [9], the Comprehensive Measure of Oral Health Knowledge (CMOHK) [10], and the Importance of Dental Behaviours (IDB) [11], among others. In total, OHVS comprises four subscales: professional dental care, appearance, flossing, and retention of natural teeth. Its design and content thus present potential in epidemiological and behavioral research in oral health.
Considering OHVS is new and requires geographic expansion to allow future longitudinal analyses and comparability across countries, cross-culturally validating to Portuguese will allow the evaluation of the Portuguese population’s view on oral health-related values and habits. Thus, this study aimed to cross-culturally adapt and validate OHVS to Portuguese (from Portugal), which was nominated OHVS-PT. Herein, we demonstrate that OHVS-PT has content reliability, internal consistency and construct validity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Participants

The target population of the present cross-sectional study consisted of adults over 18 year of age, Portuguese speakers attending Egas Moniz Dental Clinic (EMDC), a university dental clinic located in Almada, Portugal. Participants were included through a simple random sampling design protocol. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, as revised in 2013, and received approval by the Institutional Review Board (Ethics Committee of Egas Moniz, ID: 1050). Participants who met these inclusion criteria were invited to participate voluntary and anonymously. Written and informed consent was obtained from each participant before proceeding with the study. The interviewer (A.M.) was blinded to the detailed oral health status.

2.2. Cross-Cultural Adaptation of OHVS Questionnaire

The original OHVS questionnaire measures the value placed by an individual on oral health. This 12-item tool, framed within four-subscales, assesses relevant OHV domains: professional dental care (items 4, 8 and 11); appearance and health (items 3, 7 and 12); flossing (item 2, 5 and 10); and retaining natural teeth (item 1, 6 and 9). Each item is rated using a 5-point scale as follows: 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 2 = “Disagree”, 3 = “Neutral”, 4 = “Agree” and 5 = “Strongly agree” (Table 1). The total score was calculated by summing up the scores for OHVS items with a reverse scoring of items 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11, based on recommendations for scale construction [8].
For the purpose of cross-cultural adaptation and validation to Portuguese, an expert panel comprising four independent bilingual individuals fluent in Portuguese and English (including 2 women and 2 men; V.M., J.B., A.D., and A.M) from various oral health backgrounds (general dental practitioner, orthodontist, periodontologists), with years of experience ranging from 2 to 22. Firstly, the original English questionnaire was translated to Portuguese by two native speakers in Portuguese and English (V.M. and J.B.), independently, in a ‘double-blinded’ approach, and were integrated into a single translation version. Any disagreements were solved by discussion. Secondly, two independent bilingual experts, blinded to the original version, back-translated the Portuguese versions. The two new English versions of OHVS were presented to a panel of experts, who assessed inconsistency between the translated versions. The synthesis of the Portuguese version of OHVS tool was found compatible with the original English version in semantic and holistic terms and named as OHVS-PT (Table 1).
A pilot study was conducted to test the translated OHVS-PT, and to collect feedback from participants. A random sample of 28 individuals (10% of the total sample required for validation, see Section 2.4), who fulfilled the inclusion criteria (living in Portugal, native in Portuguese and 18 years old or older) and consent to participate in the study were included. Because no changes were made, this sample of participants were invited to answer the same test, one week later, for retesting purposes. Additionally, this group of patients did not account for the validation per se. Each participant was provided with the finalized version of OHVS-PT. The OHVS-PT did not require any adjustment based on the feedback, and the participants were recalled after one week for reliability analysis (see Section 2.5.1).

2.3. Sociodemographic Variables

Sociodemographic characteristics comprised age, sex, educational level (elementary, middle or higher), occupation status (student, employed, unemployed or retired), marital status (single, married/union of fact, divorced or widowed) and dental and smoking habits were recorded.

2.4. Sample Size Calculation

The sample size was defined according to Terwee et al., ensuring a minimum of 10 individuals per questionnaire item [12]. The total number of subjects (n = 280) was determined, taking into account the number of parameters and dimensions present in the questionnaire, in order to ensure an adequate stability of the variance/covariance matrix, when performing a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

2.5. Statistical Analyses

2.5.1. Reliability

OHVS-PT reliability analysis was conducted through test–retest reliability and internal consistency analysis using 28 participants (10% of the sample size) who filled the OHVS questionnaire twice with a 1-week interval [12]. The internal consistency was evaluated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient in R version 1.1-1 (R Studio Team 2018) ‘ltm’ package. An α coefficient of 0.70 was acceptable for the items in the OHVS-PT [13]. The test–retest reliability was calculated with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) obtained by the two measurement scores from the participants in R version 0.84.1 (R Studio Team 2018) ‘irr’ package. ICC values were interpreted as follows: excellent (over 0.9), acceptable (over 0.8), weak (over 0.6) and inexistent (below 0.6) [14].

2.5.2. Descriptive Analysis and Construct Validity

Descriptive analyses of background characteristics of the target participants, and OHVS items and subscales are presented as counts and correspondent percentages (%), mean and standard deviation (SD), median and interquartile range (IQR), or minimum and maximum values. R version 1.0.8 (R Studio Team 2018) ‘dplyr’ package was used for the descriptive statistical analyses of entire data. The Chi-square and Mann–Whitney tests were used to evaluate the differences in the total sum scores between different sub-groups. The level of statistical significance was set at 5% in all analyses.
CFA was calculated in R version 0.6-10 (R Studio Team 2018) using the ‘lavaan‘ package, to obtain the factorial loads and the model fit of each sub-construct. The maximum likelihood method was applied to calculate the model, and Chi-square (χ2) was used to assess the differences between models, utilizing a likelihood ratio test. Several model fit indices were used to assess the CFA model fit, including the χ2/df ratio (good adjustment with values <2) [15], the root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA; good model adjustment considered for values between 0.05 and 0.10%, 90% confidence interval [CI]) [16], the confirmatory fit index (CFI) (cut-off criterion of ≥0.90 indicates a good fit) [17] and goodness-of-fit (GFI) statistics (values of 0.95 or greater indicate well-fitting models) [18].
Then, the invariance of OHVS-PT was explored across sex. We estimated four successive models: (1) unconstrained; (2) factor loadings constrained (Model 1); (3) factor loadings and structural covariances constrained (Model 2); and (4) factor loadings, structural covariances and measurement residuals constrained (Model 3). To measure the invariance, we used the CFI delta values (ΔCFI), with a cut-off point less than 0.01, which indicated invariance [17,19]. The Chi-square delta values (Δχ2) were also used and a value lower than standardized Δχ2 for 1 − α = 0.095 indicated the invariance between the models [20,21]. We also explored the relationships between OHVS-PT items using the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

3. Results

3.1. Reliability of OHVS

Over a one week interval, all 28 individuals completed the OHVS-PT questionnaire twice, with a 1-week interval. Of these 28 participants, 16 (57.1%) were females and 12 (42.9%) were males, with similar age intervals (females: 39.1 ± 16.7 vs. males: 41.2 ± 16.1, p = 0.76), education background, marital status and employment status. The median total score of the OHVS-PT questionnaire was 50 (range: 47–55).
The internal consistency was tested by Cronbach α, with an overall result of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92; 0.99) (Table 2). Additionally, all subscales demonstrated an acceptable coefficient. The reliability was tested by ICC with a result of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86; 0.97) (p < 0.001). ICC of subscales were all over 0.8, between 0.85 and 0.95. Nominally, two of four subscales had excellent reliability (Flossing subscale = 0.95; Retaining natural teeth = 0.92), and the remaining subscales had acceptable reliability (Professional dental care = 0.85; Appearance and health = 0.89) (Table 2 and Supplementary File Table S1).

3.2. Participant’s Description

A total of 280 participants were included in the study, with an average age of 51.5 (±18.5), mostly married (49.3%, n = 138), employed (55.0%, n = 154) and non-smoker (42.9%, n = 123) (Table 3). The group was predominantly composed of women (53.6%, n = 150), yet the sociodemographics did not vary significantly according to sex for mean age (p = 0.864), age intervals (p = 0.961), education level (p = 0.270), marital status (p = 0.074), professional activity (p = 0.892) and toothbrushing habits in the past 7 days (p = 0.069). Only the smoking habits (p < 0.001) and interproximal hygiene in the past 7 days (p < 0.001) significantly differed between men and women.
Analyzing the results of OHVS-PT, items 1 and 3 had the highest average score, 4.7 (±0.7 and ±0.6, respectively), while items 9 (2.8 ± 1.4) and 10 (3.0 ± 1.0) had the lowest scores. Regarding the subscales, the ‘Appearance and Health’ presented the highest score, 13.9 (±1.6), and ‘Flossing’ the lowest, 9.6 (±3.0) (Table 4).

3.3. Construct Validity

3.3.1. Factor Validity

The CFA confirmed the OHVS unifactorial structure (Table 4). The first-order unifactorial model using CFA resulted in an adequate model fit: χ2/df = 1.57, GFI = 0.996, CFI = 0.889, RMSEA = 0.065, CI 90% (0.046–0.082) (Table 5).

3.3.2. Psychometric Analysis

This OHVS-PT questionnaire had an overall adequate reliability (with a Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.75), thus adequate psychometric properties. Given the unifactorial nature of the OHVS, we were not able to compute the convergent and discriminant validities.

3.3.3. Gender Invariance Measurement

The multigroup CFA was used to explore invariance across gender in OHVS (Table 5). Overall, we concluded the existing of invariance for gender groups for the following reasons: (i) M1, compared to the unconstrained model, had ΔCFI = 0.009 and Δχ2 = 13.101 lower than standardized Δχ2; (ii) M2, compared to the unconstrained model, had ΔCFI = 0.002 and Δχ2 = 17.214 lower than standardized Δχ2; (iii) M2, compared to the unconstrained model, had ΔCFI = 0.002 and Δχ2 = 17.214 lower than standardized Δχ2.

3.3.4. Relationships between OHVS Components

We then assessed whether the items of the OHVS were correlated, through Spearman’s coefficient. We verified a substantial high number of significant correlations (86.4% of the correlations, 57 out of 66) (Table 6). We further assessed the correlation between the subscales, confirming significant correlations among all subscales (Table 7).

4. Discussion

The results of this validation study show that the OHVS-PT provided patients’ attribute value to oral health. Despite its short dimension, OHVS-PT showed adequate internal consistency and reliability. The total score and four-subscale scores of OHVS-PT appear to have reliability and validity to measure OHV.
The validation of this questionnaire may gain more relevance in the Portuguese scenario because several studies have reported credible signs of negligent behaviors towards oral health. On the one hand, levels of negligence towards periodontal diagnosis despite the report of possible signs of periodontitis were reported around 69% [22]. On the other hand, the self-perception of periodontal condition even after receiving the diagnosis of periodontitis was observed to be very poor, and this is detrimental for the initial periodontal treatment adherence [23,24]. Therefore, the OHVS may strengthen the holistic understanding of the psychological and social/environmental factors within oral health beliefs [25], and enable the development of future intervention behavioral oral health strategies.
How the OHVS might be applied and what the potential impacts are is an important issue to address. In our view, this tool may be employed in a two-stage process. First, the initial interaction with OHVS (that is, the first time a person answers this questionnaire) may provide a snapshot on the personal representation one places on oral health. At this stage, multiple studies on different dental specialties are anticipated to be performed in the future. Second, subsequent interactions with the OHVS will depict the impact of dental appointments and procedures on this personal view. With this in mind, one might argue whether behavioral interventions could result in positive improvements on OHV, and this is a matter of further research.

Strengths and Limitations

Concerning strengths, the relatively short extension of OHVS-PT may contribute to considerable response rates [26], thus contributing to a high interest being applied in the daily clinical practice. The studied population was interviewed before the delivery of any treatment or diagnosis procedure, and the retest interview window timeline was set at an appropriate time [27]. Additionally, patients were interviewed in several specialty appointments, thus increasing the diversity of the validation sample. Furthermore, the mode of questionnaire administration was face-to-face interview, increasing population coverage, reducing the cognitive burden, high response and questionnaire completion, higher willingness to disclose sensitive information [28]. However, there are important potential biases to highlight, for instance, higher social desirability bias, “yes-saying” bias and interviewer bias [28]. To minimize them, the questionnaire was delivered to patients in privacy and without interference. Furthermore, these results should be interpreted with caution given the lack of national representativeness.
In addition, this study of validation was held in a single dental clinic localized at the Southern Lisbon Metropolitan Area; however the cross-cultural validation has, in our view, an almost minimal degree of bias, due to the relative cultural and linguistic homogeneity in Portugal.

5. Conclusions

The OHVS-PT showed adequate reliability on repeated questionnaire answers and internal consistency. Considering the short extent and ease of applicability, these findings are relevant for both the academic and clinical contexts.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at:, Table S1. Test–retest reliability using Cronbach α coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient for each item of OHVS-PT questionnaire.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.M. and J.B.; methodology, V.M. and J.B.; software, L.P.; validation, A.M., V.M., J.B. and A.S.D.; formal analysis, V.M., J.B. and L.P.; investigation, A.M.; resources, J.J.M.; data curation, V.M. and L.P.; writing—original draft preparation, V.M. and J.B.; writing—review and editing, D.W.M.; visualization, V.M. and A.S.D.; supervision, A.S.D.; project administration, V.M.; funding acquisition, A.S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This work is financed by national funds through the FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P., under the project UIDB/04585/2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Egas Moniz (protocol code 1050 and 26 December 2021 of approval).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Bye, L.; Ghirardelli, A. 2020 Update: A National Survey Explores How Adults in the United States Think about Health on a Personal, Community and Societal Level, 1st ed.; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Chicago, IL, USA, 2016; pp. 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  2. Saekel, R. Evaluation of Different Oral Care Systems: Results for Germany and Selected Highly Developed Countries. An Update of a Former Study. Dent. Oral Craniofac. Res. 2018, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fisher-Owens, S.A.; Gansky, S.A.; Platt, L.J.; Weintraub, J.A.; Soobader, M.-J.; Bramlett, M.D.; Newacheck, P.W. Influences on Children’s Oral Health: A Conceptual Model. Pediatrics 2007, 120, e510–e520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. McNeil, D.; Randall, C. Dental Fear and Anxiety Associated with Oral Health Care: Conceptual and Clinical Issues. In Behavioral Dentistry, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. Patrick, D.L.; Lee, R.S.Y.; Nucci, M.; Grembowski, D.; Jolles, C.Z.; Milgrom, P. Reducing Oral Health Disparities: A Focus on Social and Cultural Determinants. BMC Oral. Health 2006, 6, S4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kravitz, A.; Bullock, A.; Crowpe, J. Manual of Dental Practice 2015; The Council of European Dentists: Wales, UK, 2015; Volume 5.1. [Google Scholar]
  7. Simões, J.; Augusto, G.F.; do Céu, A.; Ferreira, M.C.; Jordão, M.; Calado, R.; Fronteira, I. Ten Years since the 2008 Introduction of Dental Vouchers in the Portuguese NHS. Health Policy 2018, 122, 803–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Edwards, C.B.; Randall, C.L.; McNeil, D.W. Development and Validation of the Oral Health Values Scale. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2021, 49, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Slade, G.D. Derivation and Validation of a Short-Form Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1997, 25, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Macek, M.D.; Haynes, D.; Wells, W.; Bauer-Leffler, S.; Cotten, P.A.; Parker, R.M. Measuring Conceptual Health Knowledge in the Context of Oral Health Literacy: Preliminary Results: Conceptual Health Knowledge in Oral Health Literacy. J. Public Health Dent. 2010, 70, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Kiyak, H.A. Measuring Psychosocial Variables That Predict Older Persons’oral Health Behaviour. Gerodontology 1996, 13, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Terwee, C.B.; Bot, S.D.M.; de Boer, M.R.; van der Windt, D.A.W.M.; Knol, D.L.; Dekker, J.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C.W. Quality Criteria Were Proposed for Measurement Properties of Health Status Questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2007, 60, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. DeVon, H.A.; Block, M.E.; Moyle-Wright, P.; Ernst, D.M.; Hayden, S.J.; Lazzara, D.J.; Savoy, S.M.; Kostas-Polston, E. A Psychometric Toolbox for Testing Validity and Reliability. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2007, 39, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Weir, J.P. Quantifying Test-Retest Reliability Using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and the SEM. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed.; Pearson/Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-205-45938-4. [Google Scholar]
  16. Steiger, J.H. Understanding the Limitations of Global Fit Assessment in Structural Equation Modeling. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2007, 42, 893–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-315-75742-1. [Google Scholar]
  18. Shevlin, M.; Miles, J.N.V. Effects of Sample Size, Model Specification and Factor Loadings on the GFI in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1998, 25, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dimitrov, D.M. Testing for Factorial Invariance in the Context of Construct Validation. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2010, 43, 121–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bollen, K.A. Structural Equations with Latent Variables; Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1989; ISBN 978-0-471-01171-2. [Google Scholar]
  21. Satorra, A.; Bentler, P.M. Ensuring Positiveness of the Scaled Difference Chi-Square Test Statistic. Psychometrika 2010, 75, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Machado, V.; Botelho, J.; Amaral, A.; Proenca, L.; Alves, R.; Rua, J.; Cavacas, M.A.; Delgado, A.S.; Mendes, J.J. Prevalence and Extent of Chronic Periodontitis and Its Risk Factors in a Portuguese Subpopulation: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study and Analysis of Clinical Attachment Loss. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Machado, V.; Botelho, J.; Ramos, C.; Proença, L.; Alves, R.; Cavacas, M.A.; Mendes, J.J. Psychometric Properties of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief-IPQ) in Periodontal Diseases. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019, 46, 1183–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Machado, V.; Botelho, J.; Proença, L.; Mendes, J.J. Self-reported Illness Perception and Oral Health-related Quality of Life Predict Adherence to Initial Periodontal Treatment. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2020, 47, 1209–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Glanz, K.; Rimer, B.K.; Viswanath, K. (Eds.) Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5th ed; Jossey-Bass Public Health; Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer Imprints, Wiley: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-118-62905-5. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rolstad, S.; Adler, J.; Rydén, A. Response Burden and Questionnaire Length: Is Shorter Better? A Review and Meta-Analysis. Value Health 2011, 14, 1101–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-07-047849-7. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bowling, A. Mode of Questionnaire Administration Can Have Serious Effects on Data Quality. J. Public Health 2005, 27, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Table 1. Original and Portuguese versions of the OHVS questionnaire.
Table 1. Original and Portuguese versions of the OHVS questionnaire.
Item 1It is important to me to keep my natural teeth.É importante para mim manter os meus dentes naturais.
Item 2It is okay for me to miss a day or two of flossing when I am busy. RNão há problema se não usar fio dentário durante um ou dois dias quando estou ocupado(a).
Item 3My smile is an important part of my appearance.O meu sorriso é uma parte importante da minha aparência.
Item 4 Going to a dentist is not worth the cost to me. RIr ao dentista não vale o esforço financeiro que é necessário. R
Item 5Flossing my teeth every day is a high priority for me.Usar fio dentário todos os dias é uma grande prioridade para mim.
Item 6I would rather get dentures than spend money to treat cavities or gum disease. RPrefiro ter uma prótese dentária a gastar dinheiro a tratar cáries ou doença gengival. R
Item 7I think it is important that my teeth and gums are a source of pride.Acredito que é importante que os meus dentes e gengivas sejam um motivo de orgulho.
Item 8If I have a toothache, I prefer to wait and see if it will go away on its own before seeing a dentist. RSe tenho dores de dentes, prefiro esperar que a dor passe antes de ir ao dentista. R
Item 9I would not mind if I had to have a false tooth or dentures. RNão me importaria de ter um dente falso ou uma prótese dentária. R
Item 10I make sure I have dental floss available with me so I have it when I need it.Certifico-me de que tenho o fio dentário comigo para usá-lo quando precisar.
Item 11Going to the dentist is only important if my teeth or gums are bothering me. RIr ao dentista só é importante se os meus dentes e gengivas me estão a incomodar. R
Item 12The condition of my teeth and gums is an important part of my overall health.A situação dos meus dentes e gengivas é uma parte importante da minha saúde em geral.
Note: R Indicates items that are reverse scored. These twelve items are rated on a response scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 2 = “Disagree”, 3 = “Neutral”, 4 = “Agree”, and 5 = “Strongly agree” (in Portuguese: 1 = “Discordo totalmente”; 2 = “Discordo”; 3 = “Não concordo nem discordo”; 4 = “Concordo”; 5 = “Concordo totalmente”).
Table 2. Test–retest reliability using ICCs for the OHVS-PT questionnaire.
Table 2. Test–retest reliability using ICCs for the OHVS-PT questionnaire.
Cronbach’s α Coefficient (95% CI)ICC (95% CI)p-Value
Sub-scales0.92 (0.75; 0.99)0.85 (0.71; 0.93)<0.001
Professional dental care0.94 (0.80; 0.98)0.89 (0.77; 0.95)<0.001
Appearance and health0.98 (0.94; 0.99)0.95 (0.90; 0.98)<0.001
Flossing0.96 (0.90; 0.99)0.92 (0.84; 0.96)<0.001
Retaining natural teeth0.97 (0.92; 0.99)0.93 (0.86; 0.97)<0.001
Total score0.92 (0.75; 0.99)0.85 (0.71; 0.93)<0.001
Abbreviations: CI—confidence interval; ICC—intraclass correlation coefficient.
Table 3. Sociodemographic characteristics of the included participants (n = 280).
Table 3. Sociodemographic characteristics of the included participants (n = 280).
TotalFemale (n = 150)Male (n = 130)p-Value
Age, mean (SD)51.5 (18.5)51.8 (18.5)51.2 (19.3)0.864 *
Age interval, n (%)
18–3054 (19.3)28 (18.7)26 (20.0)0.961 #
31–4031 (11.1)15 (10.0)16 (12.3)
41–5032 (11.4)18 (12.0)14 (10.8)
51–6065 (23.2)36 (24.0)29 (22.3)
61–7052 (18.6)30 (20.0)22 (16.9)
71–8036 (12.9)18 (12.0)18 (13.8)
>8010 (3.6)15 (3.3)15 (3.8)
Education, n (%)
Elementary78 (27.9)36 (24.0)42 (32.3)0.270 #
Middle88 (31.4)48 (32.0)40 (30.8)
Higher114 (40.7)66 (44.0)48 (36.9)
Marital Status, n (%)
Single88 (31.4)47 (31.3)41 (31.5)0.074 #
Married138 (49.3)72 (48.0)66 (50.8)
Divorced34 (12.1)15 (10.0)19 (14.6)
Widowed20 (7.1)16 (10.7)4 (3.1)
Professional activity, n (%)
Student30 (10.7)18 (12.0)12 (9.2)0.892 #
Unemployed18 (6.4)10 (6.7)8 (6.2)
Employed154 (55.0)81 (54.0)73 (56.2)
Retired78 (27.9)41 (27.3)37 (28.5)
Smoking habits, n (%)
Non-smoker123 (43.9)88 (58.7)35 (26.9)<0.001 #
Former smoker93 (33.2)31 (20.7)62 (47.7)
Active smoker64 (22.9)31 (20.7)33 (25.4)
Toothbrushing last 7 days, mean (SD)6.8 (0.9)6.8 (0.6)6.7 (1.3)0.069 *
Interproximal hygiene last 7 days, mean (SD)3.6 (2.9)4.2 (2.8)2.9 (2.8)<0.001 *
Abbreviations: OHVS-PT—Oral Health Value Scale-Portuguese; SD—standard deviation. Data is presented as mean values ± SD for continuous variables, and as frequency counts (%) for categorical variables. * Mann–Whitney U test, # Chi-square test.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of OHVS scores (mean, standard deviation (SD), median and interquartile range (IQR), minimum and maximum).
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of OHVS scores (mean, standard deviation (SD), median and interquartile range (IQR), minimum and maximum).
Mean (SD)Median (IQR) Min–Max
OHVS-PT Total Score47.2 (6.8)48.0 (10.3)31–60
Professional Dental Care subscale12.2 (2.6)13 (3)3–15
Item 44.3 (1.1)5 (1)1–5
Item 84.2 (1.1)5 (1)1–5
Item 113.8 (1.3)4 (2)1–5
Appearance and Health subscale13.9 (1.6)15 (2)7–15
Item 34.7 (0.6)5 (0)1–5
Item 74.5 (0.9)5 (1)1–5
Item 124.6 (0.7)5 (1)1–5
Flossing subscale9.6 (3.0)10 (5)3–15
Item 23.2 (1.2)3 (2)1–5
Item 53.4 (1.3)4 (1)1–5
Item 103.0 (1.3)3 (2)1–5
Retaining Natural Teeth subscale11.6 (2.4)12 (3)3–15
Item 14.7 (0.7)5 (1)1–5
Item 64.1 (1.3)5 (1)1–5
Item 92.8 (1.4)3 (2)1–5
Abbreviations: IQR—interquartile range; OHVS-PT—Oral Health Value Scale-Portuguese; SD—standard deviation.
Table 5. Model fit indices in the unifactorial model and configurational invariance by sex.
Table 5. Model fit indices in the unifactorial model and configurational invariance by sex.
Descriptionχ2dfχ2/dfCFIGFIRMSEA (90% CI)ΔCFIΔχ2df
Unifactorial model176.357 *1121.570.8890.9960.065 (0.046–0.082)---
Measurement invariance across sex
Unconstrained159.143 *961.660.8910.9970.069 (0.049–0.088)---
Model 1172.244 *1041.660.8820.9960.069 (0.050–0.087)0.00913.1018
Model 2176.357 *1121.570.8890.9960.065 (0.046–0.082)0.00217.2148
Model 3176.357 *1121.570.8890.9960.065 (0.046–0.082)0.00217.2148
Abbreviations: CFI, confirmatory fit index; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; GFI, goodness of fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; χ2, Chi-square. Model 1, factor loadings constrained; Model 2, factor loadings and structural covariances constrained; Model 3, factor loadings, structural covariances and measurement residuals constrained. * p < 0.01.
Table 6. Correlation between OHVS item scores.
Table 6. Correlation between OHVS item scores.
11.0000.0430.120 *0.0950.190 **0.178 **0.197 ***0.149 *0.0500.189 **0.134 *0.109
2-1.0000.248 ***0.231 ***0.384 ***0.284 ***0.191 **0.202 **0.159 **0.306 ***0.219 ***0.205 ***
3--1.0000.156 **0.272 ***0.186 **0.421 ***0.132 *0.0350.0990.237 ***0.398 ***
4---1.0000.278 ***0.383 ***0.173 **0.229 ***0.164 **0.273 ***0.366 ***0.192 **
5----1.0000.265 ***0.313 ***0.322 ***0.151 *0.652 ***0.227 ***0.252 ***
6-----1.0000.245 ***0.312 ***0.384 ***0.172 **0.253 ***0.088
7------1.0000.240 ***0.1110.224 ***0.298 ***0.356 ***
8-------1.0000.184 **0.264 ***0.328 ***0.145 *
9--------1.0000.194 **0.213 ***−0.024
10---------1.0000.254 ***0.199 ***
11----------1.0000.302 ***
Values are the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho), * p < 0.05 (colored as yellow). ** p < 0.01 (colored as orange). *** p < 0.001 (colored as green).
Table 7. Correlation between OHVS subscales scores.
Table 7. Correlation between OHVS subscales scores.
OHVSProfessional Dental CareAppearance and HealthFlossingRetaining Natural Teeth
Professional Dental Care1.0000.402 ***0.440 ***0.425 ***
Appearance and Health-1.0000.391 ***0.201 ***
Flossing--1.0000.331 ***
Retaining Natural Teeth---1.000
Values are the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho), *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Machado, V.; Mendonça, A.; Proença, L.; Mendes, J.J.; Botelho, J.; McNeill, D.W.; Delgado, A.S. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Oral Health Values Scale for the Portuguese Population. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 672.

AMA Style

Machado V, Mendonça A, Proença L, Mendes JJ, Botelho J, McNeill DW, Delgado AS. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Oral Health Values Scale for the Portuguese Population. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2022; 12(5):672.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Machado, Vanessa, André Mendonça, Luís Proença, José João Mendes, João Botelho, Daniel W. McNeill, and Ana Sintra Delgado. 2022. "Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Oral Health Values Scale for the Portuguese Population" Journal of Personalized Medicine 12, no. 5: 672.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop