Clinical oral investigations · 2026
Development and validation of the short form OHIP-TMD (SF-OHIP-TMD): a four-factor eight-item scale for assessing oral health impact in temporomandibular disorders.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zheng Yunhao, Yap Adrian Ujin, Wong Hui Loon, Tao Weijie, Liu Chenlu, Wang Jun, Xiong Xin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a short-form version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for Temporomandibular Disorders (SF-OHIP-TMD) that provides an efficient yet comprehensive assessment of TMD-specific oral health-related quality of life.
METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study included 1,149 participants diagnosed with TMD according to DC/TMD criteria (397 intra-articular, 240 pain-related, 512 combined TMD). Participants completed the 22-item OHIP-TMD, pain Numeric Rating Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Jaw Function Limitation Scale-8. Parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were performed on a random split-half sample, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the second split-half. Items were selected based on factor loadings and conceptual coverage. Reliability, validity, and item response theory analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: Parallel analysis and EFA revealed a four-factor structure (psychological impact, social impact, oral function, orofacial pain) explaining 61% of variance. Eight items with two per factor were selected for the SF-OHIP-TMD. CFA demonstrated excellent model fit (CFI = 0.989, TLI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.024). SF-OHIP-TMD showed high reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.87, McDonald's ω = 0.93) and strong correlation with the 22-item version (ρ = 0.959, p < 0.001). Convergent validity (AVE = 0.69) and discriminant validity (HTMT < 0.85) were satisfactory, with strong criterion validity demonstrated through significant correlations between factors and corresponding measures (ρ > 0.4). Item response theory analysis revealed excellent discrimination and differential response patterns between painful and non-painful TMD subtypes.
CONCLUSION: The 8-item SF-OHIP-TMD maintains the four-factor structure and psychometric robustness of the original 22-item version while significantly reducing assessment burden, making it ideal for routine clinical assessment, longitudinal follow-up and large-scale research applications.
METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study included 1,149 participants diagnosed with TMD according to DC/TMD criteria (397 intra-articular, 240 pain-related, 512 combined TMD). Participants completed the 22-item OHIP-TMD, pain Numeric Rating Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Jaw Function Limitation Scale-8. Parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were performed on a random split-half sample, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the second split-half. Items were selected based on factor loadings and conceptual coverage. Reliability, validity, and item response theory analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: Parallel analysis and EFA revealed a four-factor structure (psychological impact, social impact, oral function, orofacial pain) explaining 61% of variance. Eight items with two per factor were selected for the SF-OHIP-TMD. CFA demonstrated excellent model fit (CFI = 0.989, TLI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.024). SF-OHIP-TMD showed high reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.87, McDonald's ω = 0.93) and strong correlation with the 22-item version (ρ = 0.959, p < 0.001). Convergent validity (AVE = 0.69) and discriminant validity (HTMT < 0.85) were satisfactory, with strong criterion validity demonstrated through significant correlations between factors and corresponding measures (ρ > 0.4). Item response theory analysis revealed excellent discrimination and differential response patterns between painful and non-painful TMD subtypes.
CONCLUSION: The 8-item SF-OHIP-TMD maintains the four-factor structure and psychometric robustness of the original 22-item version while significantly reducing assessment burden, making it ideal for routine clinical assessment, longitudinal follow-up and large-scale research applications.