Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Public Health Dent. 2001 Summer;61(3):155–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2001.tb03383.x

TABLE 2.

Items Identified in Three Subscales Together with Mean and Standard Deviation of Response Scores for Each Included Item

Factor Items Mean SD
Process Informed about costs before treatment 4.40 .61
Orthodontist treated parent & child w/respect 4.40 .71
Treatment carefully explained 4.38 .69
Any questions answered promptly 4.36 .64
Staff treated child and parent w/respect 4.35 .73
Child liked orthodontist 4.35 .82
Orthodontist gentle 4.29 .72
Treatment area clean and sanitary 4.28 .57
Plenty of time spent during appointments 4.26 .68
Office procedures explained before treatment 4.13 .81
Care could have been better* 4.12 .82
Kept well informed of progress 4.11 .87
Assistants were gentle 4.10 .71
Psychosocial Child’s self-esteem improved 4.40 .87
Child has more attractive face 4.16 .89
Child better career opportunities due to ortho 3.36 .90
Child more confident 3.60 .87
Child more outgoing 3.40 .94
Child more popular 3.10 .87
Child’s academic performance better 2.77 .87
Outcome Would seek ortho treatment again 4.59 .62
Child has straighter teeth after treatment 4.50 .68
Parent satisfied with result 4.41 .73
Child has better bite 4.36 .70
Treatment fees too high* 3.92 .82
*

Questionnaire items presented in reversed fashion to diminish formation of response sets.