Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Prosthodont Res. 2016 Jan 11;60(2):85–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.12.003

Table 3.

Known-groups validity:

OHIP5 scores in subjects who differed in their denture status, number of natural teeth present and treatment urgency in 403 subjects with OHIP5 data.

Variables No OHIP 5 mean ± sd Effect size Cohen’s d (95%CI)
Presence of denture 396a 0.91 (0.16 to 1.66)
 Yes 7 5.3 ± 4.5
 No 389 2.7 ± 2.8
Number of natural teeth present 395b 1.35 (0.68 to 2.02)
 Less than 20 teeth 9 6.4 ± 5.7
 Equal or more than 20 teeth 386 2.6 ± 2.7
Treatment urgency 396a −0.04 (−0.41 to 0.32)*
 Urgent care 1 14.0 ± 0.0
 Early care 31 2.8 ± 3.1
 No obvious problem 364 2.7 ± 2.8
*

Excluding ‘Urgent care’ group because of too small number of subjects

Missing data for

a

7 and

b

8 subjects