Table 3 Reasons for scoring poor methodological quality on the measurement property for assessing oral health per study
Study | Assessment | Measurement property | Reason for poor methodological quality |
|---|---|---|---|
Andersson et al. (2002b) [25] | ROAG | Content validity | - Target population not involved - Not assessed if all items together comprehensively reflect the construct to be measured |
Arvidson-Bufano et al. (1996) [26] | MDS-RAI | Inter-rater reliability | - Small sample size - Only percent agreement calculated |
Blank et al. (1996) [27] | MDS-RAI | Inter-rater reliability | - Unclear how many patients the dentist assessed - Only percent agreement is calculated - Other important methodological flaws in design or execution of study |
Chalmers et al. (2005) [10] | OHAT | Content validity Criterion Validity Test-retest | - Target population not involved - Not assessed if all items together comprehensively reflect the construct to be measured - Small sample size - No ICC or correlation calculated |
Cohen-Mansfield et al. (2002) [28] | MDS | Inter-rater reliability | - Small sample size - No ICC or correlations calculated - Other important methodological flaws in design or execution of study |
Dickinson et al. (2001) [19] | THROAT | Content validity | - Target population not involved |
Fjeld et al. (2017) [29] | DHR | Content validity | - Target population not involved |
Hanne et al. (2012) [30] | ROAG | Cross-cultural validity | - Only forward translation |
Hawes et al. (1995) [31] | MDS | Inter-rater reliability | - Only percent agreement is calculated |
Henriksen et al. (1999) [32] | MPS | Intra-rater reliability Inter-rater reliability | - Small sample size |
Kayser-Jones et al. (1995) [33] | BOHSE | Content validity | - Target population not involved |
Paulsson et al. (2008) [36] | ROAG | Criterion validity | - Other important methodological flaws in design or execution of study - Correlations or AUC not calculated - Sensitivity and specificity not calculated |
Simpelaere et al. (2016) [38] | OHAT | Intra-rater reliability | - Small sample size - Only percent agreement is calculated |
Yanagisawa et al. (2017) [39] | OAS | Criterion-validity | - No factor analysis performed and no reference to another study |