Development and Validation of the Human Aspects Influencing the Oral Healthcare Data Quality (HAI-DQ) Questionnaire among Primary Oral Healthcare Workers in Malaysia

Authors

Alwani Mohd Zuhudi, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, MalaysiaFollow
Syirahaniza Mohd Salleh, Oral Health Division, Kedah State Health Department, Kedah, Malaysia
Mohd Zulkarnain Sinor, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
Mohd Zarawi Mat Nor, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
Basaruddin Ahmad, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
Sarliza Yasmin Sanusi, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia

Abstract

Resolving substandard oral healthcare data quality requires identifying the influencing factors. However, no known instrument for such assessment can be used locally. Objective: To develop and validate the HAI-DQ questionnaire for assessing human factors that influence oral healthcare data quality among primary oral healthcare workers in Malaysia. Methods: The HAI-DQ questionnaire was developed based on literature reviews, focus group discussions, and focus observations. Six experts assessed its content validity using the Content Validity Index (CVI), and the Face Validity Index (FVI) was used to establish its face validity through a pre-test involving 30 primary dental personnel. Results: Four domains with 57 items were derived during the HAI-DQ development. The I-CVI values between 0.83 to 1.00 and the S-CVI value of 0.97 indicated acceptable content validity. Excellent face validity was denoted by the I-FVI values of 0.93 to 1.00 and an S-FVI value of 0.99. Conclusion: HAI-DQ is relevant and comprehensible for assessing human aspects that influence data quality, indicating its potential to be used as an investigation tool in future research related to oral healthcare data quality. Nevertheless, other psychometric assessments are required to further support the instrument’s validity.

References

1. World Health Organization. Framework and standards for country health information systems. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.

2. World Health Organization. Monitoring the building blocks of health systems: A handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.

3. World Health Organization. Improving data quality: A guide for developing countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.

4. Oral Health Division Ministry of Health Malaysia. Operation manual for dental officers and dental nurses: Gingival Index for Schoolchildren (GIS). Putrajaya: Ministry of Health Malaysia; 2013.

5. Oral Health Division Ministry of Health Malaysia. National Oral Health Survey of Schoolchildren 2007: Oral Health Stat us of 16 -Year- Old Schoolchildren. Putrajaya: Ministry of Health Malaysia; 2007.

6. Aqil A, Lippeveld T, Hozumi D. PRISM framework: A paradigm shift for designing, strengthening and evaluating routine health information systems. Health Policy Plan. 2009; 24(3):217-28.

7. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3(2):77-101.

8. Yusoff MSB. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Educ Med J. 2019; 11(2):49-54.

9. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992; 5(4):194-7.

10. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006; 29(5):489-97.

11. Perneger TV, Courvoisier DS, Hudelson PM, Gayet-Ageron A. Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. Qual Life Res. 2015; 24(1):147-51.

12. Yusoff MSB. ABC of response process validation and face validity index calculation. Educ Med J. 2019; 11(3):55-61.

13. Yusoff MSB, Arifin WN, Hadie SNH. ABC of questionnaire development and validation for survey research. Educ Med J. 2021; 13(1):97-108.

14. Bouranta N, Chitiris L, Paravantis J. The relationship between internal and external service quality. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. 2009; 21(3):275-93.

15. Aithal A, Aithal PS. Development and validation of survey questionnaire & experimental data – A systematical review-based statistical approach. Int J Manag Technol Soc Sci. 2020; 5(2):233-51.

16. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar- Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Front Public Health. 2018; 6:149.

17. Zhou SZ, Wang XL, Wang Y. Design of a questionnaire for evaluating the quality of life of postpartum women (PQOL) in China. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18(4):497-508.

18. Lau S-YA, Yusoff MSB, Lee Y-Y, Choi S-B, Rashid F, Wahid N, Xiao J-Z, Liong M-T. Development, translation and validation of questionnaires for diarrhoea and respiratory- related illnesses during probiotic administration in children. Educ Med J. 2017; 9(4):19-30.

19. Hinkin TR. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods. 1998; 1(1):104-21.

20. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Dickinson WB, Leech NL, Zoran AG. A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009; 8(3):1-21.

21. Tümen Akyildiz S. An overview of qualitative research and focus group discussion. Int J Acad Res Educ. 2021; 7(1):1-15.

22. Sutton J, Austin Z. Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015; 68(3):226-31.

23. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data quality. In: OECD handbook for inter nationally comparative education statistics: Concepts, standards, definitions and classifications. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017. pp. 77-83.

24. ISO 25000 Software and Data Quality. ISO/ IEC 25012 [internet]. c2014 [cited 2021 Feb 26]. Available from: https://iso25000.com/index.php/ en/iso-25000-standards/iso-25012?start=0

25. Abdullah N, Ismail SA, Sophiayati S, Sam SM. Data quality in big data: A review. Int J of Adv Soft Comput Appl. 2015; 7(3):16-27.

26. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007; 30(4):459-67.

27. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986; 35(6):382-5.

28. García de Yébenes Prous MA, Rodríguez Salvanés F, Carmona Ortells L. Validación de cuestionarios [Validation of questionnaires]. Reumatol Clin. 2009; 5(4):171-7. Spanish.

29. Ruel E, Wagner III WE, Gillespie BJ. The practice of survey research: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2016.

30. Finfgeld-Connett D. Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. J Adv Nurs. 2010; 66(2):246-54.

31. Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theor y and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2014.

32. McDermott R. Internal and external validity. In Druckman JN, Greene DP, Kuklinski JH, Lupia A, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge University Press; 2011. pp. 27-40.

33. Xu MA, Storr GB. Learning the concept of researcher as instrument in qualitative research. Qual Rep 2012; 17(21):1-18.

34. He SL, Wang JH. Validation of the Chinese version of the oral health impact profile for TMDs (OHIPTMDs- C). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015; 20(2):e161-6.

35. Rachmawati YL, Loster JE, Loster BW, Maharani DA. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Indonesian version of the selfregulation for dental home care questionnaire. J Dent Indones. 2018; 25(3):157-62.

36. Nuraini SL, Rahardjo A, Maharani DA. An Indonesian version of Child Oral Health Impact Profile-Short Form 19 (COHIP-SF19): Assessing validity and reliability. J Dent Indones. 2021; 28(1):45-53.

Recommended Citation

Mohd Zuhudi, A., Mohd Salleh, S., Sinor, M., Mat Nor, M., Ahmad, B., & Sanusi, S. Development and Validation of the Human Aspects Influencing the Oral Healthcare Data Quality (HAI-DQ) Questionnaire among Primary Oral Healthcare Workers in Malaysia. J Dent Indones. 2024;31(1): 34-42