48 Chapter 3 Results No serious difficulties were encountered during any part of the translation and adaption procedure. Items discussed were questions 18 and 19 and related to whether or not the participant had any natural dentition. The English word ‘teeth’ refers to anteroir teeth as well as premolars and molars. In Dutch, the straightforward translation of ‘teeth’ refers only to the anterior teeth. Therefore, in the Dutch translation, this term was changed to ‘front teeth’ and ‘back teeth’. Instead of the straightforward translation, some idiomatic equivalent had to be found for the following words or phrases: ‘food particles’, ‘upset’ and ‘denture’. For these words, several translations are possible that would have been understood by a Dutch-speaking person. Discussion was mainly based on which word would be most appropriate. Twelve out of 158 participants did not answer all of the first 17 questions of the LORQv3-NL, but each of these questions was answered by at least 153 participants. The internal consistency of the Dutch version of the LORQ can be considered satisfactory. Items 11 through 14, 29, and 37 had a low corrected item-total correlation. (0.42, 0.43, 0.30, 0.31, 0.24, and 0.21, respectively). Results compared with the original LORQ are shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Cronbach α values for difference in internal consistency between English LORQv3 and Dutch version Item Nos. LORQv3 LORQv3-NL Items 1-17 0.92 0.89 Items 20-23 0.87 0.83 Items 26-31 0.84 0.75 Items 34-39 0.92 0.81 Abbreviations: LORQv3, Liverpool Oral Rehabilitation Questionnaire, version 3; NL, Netherlands The explained variance of the mean score between the 2 time measurements was 0.89, indicating that 89% of the variance in the 2-week mean scores of the first 17 items can be explained or predicted correctly by the baseline scores. Table 2 shows various result measures on each item separately. Items 9, 14, and 16 had a low p value, indicating a structural difference between test and retest. The weighted kappa values were very good, with 0.401 as the lowest score for LORQ-item 2. Figure 1 shows that participants tended to report fewer complaints at the second measurement.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw