IADR Abstract Archives
Content Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Systemic Antibiotic Prescription Decisions in Periodontics
Objectives: To perform a content validation of a questionnaire to assess systemic antibiotic prescription decisions in periodontics.
Methods: A 34 item questionnaire was designed based on items from previously published questionnaires in English. A professional translator and two bilingual dentists translated the items from English into Spanish using the parallel-blind technique. Questions were distributed as follows: (A) antibiotic prescription based on scientific evidence, and (B) prescription of systemic antibiotics in the periodontal consultation. Ethical approval was obtained from UNIBE’s Ethics Committee. Next, a pilot study was conducted with five dentists to identify whether the questions and the response options were adequately understood. Minor changes were made according to the suggestions. Later, the content validity data was obtained employing a validated instrument. Eleven judges with expertise in periodontics and research evaluated the clarity, coherence, and relevance of the items using a 1 to 4 response scale. Modifications were made to improve the instrument following the judges’ recommendations.
Results: Nine judges evaluated the questionnaire, and modifications were made following their recommendations. A final item pool of 37 items was obtained. The means of clarity, coherence and relevance for section A were 3.33 (SD = 0.56), 3.61 (SD = 0.52) and 3.42 (SD = 0.59), respectively. In the case of section B, the means of clarity, coherence and relevance were 3.64 (SD = 0.60), 3.80 (SD = 0.56) and 3.86 (SD = 0.50), respectively.
Conclusions: According to the judges results the designed questionnaire presented from moderate to high level of clarity, coherence, and relevance of its items. This instrument will be employed to identify the systemic antibiotic prescription decisions of Dominican periodontists, a relevant information to evaluate whether scientific evidence it’s been translated into clinical practice.
Methods: A 34 item questionnaire was designed based on items from previously published questionnaires in English. A professional translator and two bilingual dentists translated the items from English into Spanish using the parallel-blind technique. Questions were distributed as follows: (A) antibiotic prescription based on scientific evidence, and (B) prescription of systemic antibiotics in the periodontal consultation. Ethical approval was obtained from UNIBE’s Ethics Committee. Next, a pilot study was conducted with five dentists to identify whether the questions and the response options were adequately understood. Minor changes were made according to the suggestions. Later, the content validity data was obtained employing a validated instrument. Eleven judges with expertise in periodontics and research evaluated the clarity, coherence, and relevance of the items using a 1 to 4 response scale. Modifications were made to improve the instrument following the judges’ recommendations.
Results: Nine judges evaluated the questionnaire, and modifications were made following their recommendations. A final item pool of 37 items was obtained. The means of clarity, coherence and relevance for section A were 3.33 (SD = 0.56), 3.61 (SD = 0.52) and 3.42 (SD = 0.59), respectively. In the case of section B, the means of clarity, coherence and relevance were 3.64 (SD = 0.60), 3.80 (SD = 0.56) and 3.86 (SD = 0.50), respectively.
Conclusions: According to the judges results the designed questionnaire presented from moderate to high level of clarity, coherence, and relevance of its items. This instrument will be employed to identify the systemic antibiotic prescription decisions of Dominican periodontists, a relevant information to evaluate whether scientific evidence it’s been translated into clinical practice.