↓ Skip to main content

Validation and reliability of the Malaysian English version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire for adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation and reliability of the Malaysian English version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire for adolescents
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0632-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wan Nurazreena Wan Hassan, Zamros Yuzadi Mohd Yusof, Mohd Zambri Mohamed Makhbul, Siti Safuraa Zahirah Shahidan, Siti Farhana Mohd Ali, Rashidah Burhanudin, Maria Jirom Gere

Abstract

The Malay version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire has been validated for use by Malaysian adolescents. Although Malay is their national language, English is widely used as the lingua franca among Malaysians of different ethnicities. This study aimed to validate an English version of the PIDAQ adapted for use by Malaysian adolescents to optimize data capture from adolescents who prefer English as the medium for communication. The published English version of PIDAQ was pilot tested on 12- to 17-year-old adolescents, resulting in a few modifications to suit the Malaysian variety of English. Psychometric properties were tested on 393 adolescents who attended orthodontic practices and selected schools. Malocclusion was assessed using the Malocclusion Index, an aggregation of Perception of Occlusion Scale and the Aesthetic Component of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need, by the subjects (MI-S) and investigators (MI-D). Data were analysed for internal consistency and age-associated invariance, discriminant, construct and criterion validities, reproducibility and floor and ceiling effects using AMOS v.20 and SPSS v.20. The item Don't like own teeth on video of the Aesthetic Concern (AC) subscale was not relevant to a large proportion of participants (11.7%). Therefore, it was removed and the Malaysian English PIDAQ was analysed based on 22 items instead of 23 items. Confirmatory factor analysis showed good fit statistics (comparative fit index: 0.902, root-mean-square error of approximation: 0.066). Internal consistency was good for the Dental Self-Confidence, Social Impact and Psychological Impact subscales (Cronbach's alpha: 0.70-0.95) but lower (0.52-0.62) though acceptable for the AC subscale as it consisted of only 2 items. The reproducibility test was acceptable (intra-class correlations: 0.53-0.78). For all PIDAQ subscales, the MI-S and MI-D scores of those with severe malocclusion differed significantly from those with no or slight malocclusion. There were significant associations between the PIDAQ subscales with ranking of perceived dental appearance, need for braces and impact of malocclusion on daily activities. There were no floor or ceiling effects. The adapted Malaysian English PIDAQ demonstrated adequate psychometric properties that are valid and reliable for assessment of psychological impacts of dental aesthetics among Malaysian adolescents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Unspecified 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 30 27%
Unknown 30 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 41%
Unspecified 8 7%
Psychology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#17,883,247
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,509
of 2,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,260
of 309,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#38
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.