49 Translation and validation of the LORQv3 in Dutch 3 Table 2 - Mean scores and test-retest reliability measured for first 17 general items of LORQ: distribution per item LORQ Item No. per Score 1/2/3/4 Weighted Kappa Reliability Decision Making Error Mean Score p 95% CI 1 72/51/21/11 0.574 0.583 0.66 0.18 .280 [-0.15…0.50] 2 89/45/13/6 0.401 0.408 0.70 0.15 .392 [-0.20…0.49] 3 113/27/12/4 0.822 0.824 0.39 0.00 1.000 [-0.19…0.19] 4 138/13/4/1 0.730 0.755 0.27 0.29 .661 [-0.11…0.16] 5 104/36/11/3 0.614 0.637 0.48 0.29 .801 [-0.21…0.26] 6 73/69/10/3 0.686 0.694 0.47 0.89 .447 [-0.14…0.32] 7 88/53/9/5 0.743 0.752 0.44 0.29 .786 [-0.19…0.25] 8 72/56/23/6 0.699 0.708 0.45 0.12 .292 [-0.11…0.34] 9 108/36/8/5 0.743 0.765 0.42 0.21 .051 [-0.00…0.41] 10 106/31/11/9 0.729 0.780 0.48 0.18 .136 [-0.06…0.41] 11 132/19/3/2 0.705 0.713 0.37 0.03 .744 [-0.15…0.21] 12 127/24/3/2 0.809 0.831 0.32 0.09 .263 [-0.07…0.25] 13 135/15/4/1 0.696 0.726 0.35 0.06 .488 [-0.11…0.23] 14 124/23/3/5 0.622 0.753 0.43 0.24 .030 [0.02…0.45] 15 106/31/14/6 0.830 0.840 0.39 0.15 .134 [-0.05…0.34] 16 70/50/23/13 0.708 0.743 0.54 0.29 .031 [0.03…0.56] 17 126/20/6/5 0.672 0.681 0.51 -0.03 .812 [-0.28…0.22] Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LORQ, Liverpool Oral Rehabilitation Questionnaire For measuring the convergent validity, the LORQv3-NL was compared with the OHIP14-NL. The results can be seen in Figure 2. The association was in the expected direction, R2 = 0.642. The oncology patients scored higher on the first 17 items of the LORQ than the other patient groups. Furthermore, the general practice group reported fewer problems with their oral rehabilitation than the university dental clinic group. Box plots of this variable for the different patient groups are shown in Figure 3.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw