z-logo
Premium
Assessing Older Adults’ Masticatory Efficiency
Author(s) -
Cusson Valérie,
Caron Christian,
Gaudreau Pierrette,
Morais José A.,
Shatenstein Bryna,
Payette Hélène
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of the american geriatrics society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.992
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 1532-5415
pISSN - 0002-8614
DOI - 10.1111/jgs.13443
Subject(s) - masticatory force , medicine , cronbach's alpha , confidence interval , physical therapy , raw score , gerontology , demography , psychometrics , dentistry , clinical psychology , statistics , raw data , mathematics , sociology
Objectives To determine internal consistency and criterion validity of a questionnaire assessing perception of masticatory efficiency in community‐dwelling older adults. Design Secondary cross‐sectional analysis of baseline data from the Q uébec L ongitudinal S tudy on N utrition and S uccessful A ging ( N u A ge). Setting N u A ge is a 5‐year (2003–08) observational study of 1,793 men and women aged 67 to 84 in good general health at recruitment. Participants A sample of 1,789 was used to determine internal consistency of the questionnaire. A subsample (n = 94) of the cohort who underwent a clinical test directly measuring masticatory efficiency was used to determine criterion validity of the questionnaire. Measurements The questionnaire was a subset of the O ral H ealth I mpact P rofile containing 7 Likert‐scale questions (score 0–28 points). Masticatory efficiency was assessed using a validated clinical test measuring ability to chew a raw carrot ( S wallowing T hreshold T est I ndex, score 0–100%). For perceived and measured data, a higher score indicated better masticatory efficiency. Results Internal consistency of the questionnaire was deemed good ( C ronbach alpha = 0.803). Mean scores were generally high (men, 25.3, 95% confidence interval ( CI ) = 24.7–25.9; women, 24.3, 95% CI  = 23.7–25.0), indicating good perceived masticatory efficiency for men and women. Mean performance test scores were low (men, 60.8%, 95% CI  = 57.3–64.2; women, 61.2%, 95% CI  = 57.7–64.7). No significant relationship between perceived and measured masticatory efficiency was observed ( P earson correlation coefficient = −0.14, P  = .22). Conclusion Despite good internal consistency of the questionnaire and the recognized validity of the test, people's perception of their masticatory efficiency does not reflect objective efficiency as measured using a clinical test.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom