Gagging Problem Assessment: a re-evaluation
Summary The Gagging Problem Assessment (GPA) is an instrument to evaluate dental gagging. Although the GPA seemed to be reliable and valid in a pilot study, a replication study with more subjects was needed. Based on the pilot study, the number of items was reduced, resulting in the revised version...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of oral rehabilitation 2015-07, Vol.42 (7), p.495-502 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 502 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 495 |
container_title | Journal of oral rehabilitation |
container_volume | 42 |
creator | van Linden van den Heuvell, G. F. E. C. de Boer, B. ter Pelkwijk, B. J. Bildt, M. M. Stegenga, B. |
description | Summary
The Gagging Problem Assessment (GPA) is an instrument to evaluate dental gagging. Although the GPA seemed to be reliable and valid in a pilot study, a replication study with more subjects was needed. Based on the pilot study, the number of items was reduced, resulting in the revised version of the GPA (GPA‐R). The aims of this study were to replicate the reliability of the GPA‐R and to investigate the correlation between dental gagging and general anxiety. Dental gagging patients (n = 59) were compared with a control group (n = 17) at t0 and 3 weeks later. The ‘gagging group’ also filled in the SCL‐90 anxiety scale. Gagging‐specific homogenous domains and internal consistency were determined. Stability and distinguishing capacity of the GPA‐R were assessed. SCL‐90‐Anxiety scores were compared with standard values in a non‐clinical population. The GPA‐R patient part was able to reliably discriminate between the absence or the presence of dental gagging. However, the reliability of the GPA‐R‐dentist part was insufficient. The GPA‐R seems to be sensitive to subtle differences in acts of the dentists. To overcome these problems, more detailed and explicit instructions on how to use the GPA‐R should be formulated and more specific gagging stimuli should be included. The ‘gagging group’ reported ‘fear of choking’ significantly more often than the control group (P = 0·008). This finding might be important for the treatment of dental gagging. Considering the outcome of our study, development of a new diagnostic gagging tool needs another approach that focuses on gagging severity. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/joor.12280 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1691012332</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1691012332</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5030-4fbf15d9020585bfc78315994e3e49ac04e9742deb8228aa0c629a3cd5ddd7ce3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EoqWw4QNQlgiU4kecxOyqQguoUISKithYjjOpUvIodgL070npY8lsZnPumdFF6JTgLmnmal6WpksoDfEeahPmc5eGHt1Hbcwwd0lI31royNo5xjhkPDhELcr9IGQ0aKPLoZrN0mLmPJsyyiB3etaCtTkU1bWjHAMufKmsVlVaFsfoIFGZhZPN7qDXwe2kf-eOxsP7fm_kat5cdL0kSgiPBaaYhzxKdHOKcCE8YOAJpbEHIvBoDFHY_KwU1j4ViumYx3EcaGAddL72Lkz5WYOtZJ5aDVmmCihrK4kvCCaUMdqgF2tUm9JaA4lcmDRXZikJlqty5Koc-VdOA59tvHWUQ7xDt200AFkD32kGy39U8mE8ftlK3XUmtRX87DLKfEg_YAGX06ehnA5u3sVEPErOfgGNlH0e</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1691012332</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gagging Problem Assessment: a re-evaluation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>van Linden van den Heuvell, G. F. E. C. ; de Boer, B. ; ter Pelkwijk, B. J. ; Bildt, M. M. ; Stegenga, B.</creator><creatorcontrib>van Linden van den Heuvell, G. F. E. C. ; de Boer, B. ; ter Pelkwijk, B. J. ; Bildt, M. M. ; Stegenga, B.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
The Gagging Problem Assessment (GPA) is an instrument to evaluate dental gagging. Although the GPA seemed to be reliable and valid in a pilot study, a replication study with more subjects was needed. Based on the pilot study, the number of items was reduced, resulting in the revised version of the GPA (GPA‐R). The aims of this study were to replicate the reliability of the GPA‐R and to investigate the correlation between dental gagging and general anxiety. Dental gagging patients (n = 59) were compared with a control group (n = 17) at t0 and 3 weeks later. The ‘gagging group’ also filled in the SCL‐90 anxiety scale. Gagging‐specific homogenous domains and internal consistency were determined. Stability and distinguishing capacity of the GPA‐R were assessed. SCL‐90‐Anxiety scores were compared with standard values in a non‐clinical population. The GPA‐R patient part was able to reliably discriminate between the absence or the presence of dental gagging. However, the reliability of the GPA‐R‐dentist part was insufficient. The GPA‐R seems to be sensitive to subtle differences in acts of the dentists. To overcome these problems, more detailed and explicit instructions on how to use the GPA‐R should be formulated and more specific gagging stimuli should be included. The ‘gagging group’ reported ‘fear of choking’ significantly more often than the control group (P = 0·008). This finding might be important for the treatment of dental gagging. Considering the outcome of our study, development of a new diagnostic gagging tool needs another approach that focuses on gagging severity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-182X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2842</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/joor.12280</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25678327</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Case-Control Studies ; Dental Anxiety - psychology ; Dental Care - psychology ; Dentistry ; Female ; Gagging ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; oral health ; oral physiology ; oral rehabilitation ; Psychometrics - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><ispartof>Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2015-07, Vol.42 (7), p.495-502</ispartof><rights>2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5030-4fbf15d9020585bfc78315994e3e49ac04e9742deb8228aa0c629a3cd5ddd7ce3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5030-4fbf15d9020585bfc78315994e3e49ac04e9742deb8228aa0c629a3cd5ddd7ce3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjoor.12280$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjoor.12280$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25678327$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Linden van den Heuvell, G. F. E. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Boer, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ter Pelkwijk, B. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bildt, M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stegenga, B.</creatorcontrib><title>Gagging Problem Assessment: a re-evaluation</title><title>Journal of oral rehabilitation</title><addtitle>J Oral Rehabil</addtitle><description>Summary
The Gagging Problem Assessment (GPA) is an instrument to evaluate dental gagging. Although the GPA seemed to be reliable and valid in a pilot study, a replication study with more subjects was needed. Based on the pilot study, the number of items was reduced, resulting in the revised version of the GPA (GPA‐R). The aims of this study were to replicate the reliability of the GPA‐R and to investigate the correlation between dental gagging and general anxiety. Dental gagging patients (n = 59) were compared with a control group (n = 17) at t0 and 3 weeks later. The ‘gagging group’ also filled in the SCL‐90 anxiety scale. Gagging‐specific homogenous domains and internal consistency were determined. Stability and distinguishing capacity of the GPA‐R were assessed. SCL‐90‐Anxiety scores were compared with standard values in a non‐clinical population. The GPA‐R patient part was able to reliably discriminate between the absence or the presence of dental gagging. However, the reliability of the GPA‐R‐dentist part was insufficient. The GPA‐R seems to be sensitive to subtle differences in acts of the dentists. To overcome these problems, more detailed and explicit instructions on how to use the GPA‐R should be formulated and more specific gagging stimuli should be included. The ‘gagging group’ reported ‘fear of choking’ significantly more often than the control group (P = 0·008). This finding might be important for the treatment of dental gagging. Considering the outcome of our study, development of a new diagnostic gagging tool needs another approach that focuses on gagging severity.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Dental Anxiety - psychology</subject><subject>Dental Care - psychology</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gagging</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>oral health</subject><subject>oral physiology</subject><subject>oral rehabilitation</subject><subject>Psychometrics - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><issn>0305-182X</issn><issn>1365-2842</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EoqWw4QNQlgiU4kecxOyqQguoUISKithYjjOpUvIodgL070npY8lsZnPumdFF6JTgLmnmal6WpksoDfEeahPmc5eGHt1Hbcwwd0lI31royNo5xjhkPDhELcr9IGQ0aKPLoZrN0mLmPJsyyiB3etaCtTkU1bWjHAMufKmsVlVaFsfoIFGZhZPN7qDXwe2kf-eOxsP7fm_kat5cdL0kSgiPBaaYhzxKdHOKcCE8YOAJpbEHIvBoDFHY_KwU1j4ViumYx3EcaGAddL72Lkz5WYOtZJ5aDVmmCihrK4kvCCaUMdqgF2tUm9JaA4lcmDRXZikJlqty5Koc-VdOA59tvHWUQ7xDt200AFkD32kGy39U8mE8ftlK3XUmtRX87DLKfEg_YAGX06ehnA5u3sVEPErOfgGNlH0e</recordid><startdate>201507</startdate><enddate>201507</enddate><creator>van Linden van den Heuvell, G. F. E. C.</creator><creator>de Boer, B.</creator><creator>ter Pelkwijk, B. J.</creator><creator>Bildt, M. M.</creator><creator>Stegenga, B.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201507</creationdate><title>Gagging Problem Assessment: a re-evaluation</title><author>van Linden van den Heuvell, G. F. E. C. ; de Boer, B. ; ter Pelkwijk, B. J. ; Bildt, M. M. ; Stegenga, B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5030-4fbf15d9020585bfc78315994e3e49ac04e9742deb8228aa0c629a3cd5ddd7ce3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Dental Anxiety - psychology</topic><topic>Dental Care - psychology</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gagging</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>oral health</topic><topic>oral physiology</topic><topic>oral rehabilitation</topic><topic>Psychometrics - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Linden van den Heuvell, G. F. E. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Boer, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ter Pelkwijk, B. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bildt, M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stegenga, B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of oral rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Linden van den Heuvell, G. F. E. C.</au><au>de Boer, B.</au><au>ter Pelkwijk, B. J.</au><au>Bildt, M. M.</au><au>Stegenga, B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gagging Problem Assessment: a re-evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Journal of oral rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>J Oral Rehabil</addtitle><date>2015-07</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>495</spage><epage>502</epage><pages>495-502</pages><issn>0305-182X</issn><eissn>1365-2842</eissn><abstract>Summary
The Gagging Problem Assessment (GPA) is an instrument to evaluate dental gagging. Although the GPA seemed to be reliable and valid in a pilot study, a replication study with more subjects was needed. Based on the pilot study, the number of items was reduced, resulting in the revised version of the GPA (GPA‐R). The aims of this study were to replicate the reliability of the GPA‐R and to investigate the correlation between dental gagging and general anxiety. Dental gagging patients (n = 59) were compared with a control group (n = 17) at t0 and 3 weeks later. The ‘gagging group’ also filled in the SCL‐90 anxiety scale. Gagging‐specific homogenous domains and internal consistency were determined. Stability and distinguishing capacity of the GPA‐R were assessed. SCL‐90‐Anxiety scores were compared with standard values in a non‐clinical population. The GPA‐R patient part was able to reliably discriminate between the absence or the presence of dental gagging. However, the reliability of the GPA‐R‐dentist part was insufficient. The GPA‐R seems to be sensitive to subtle differences in acts of the dentists. To overcome these problems, more detailed and explicit instructions on how to use the GPA‐R should be formulated and more specific gagging stimuli should be included. The ‘gagging group’ reported ‘fear of choking’ significantly more often than the control group (P = 0·008). This finding might be important for the treatment of dental gagging. Considering the outcome of our study, development of a new diagnostic gagging tool needs another approach that focuses on gagging severity.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>25678327</pmid><doi>10.1111/joor.12280</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0305-182X |
ispartof | Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2015-07, Vol.42 (7), p.495-502 |
issn | 0305-182X 1365-2842 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1691012332 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | Adult Aged Case-Control Studies Dental Anxiety - psychology Dental Care - psychology Dentistry Female Gagging Humans Male Middle Aged oral health oral physiology oral rehabilitation Psychometrics - methods Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Surveys and Questionnaires - standards |
title | Gagging Problem Assessment: a re-evaluation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T23%3A21%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gagging%20Problem%20Assessment:%20a%20re-evaluation&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20oral%20rehabilitation&rft.au=van%20Linden%20van%20den%20Heuvell,%20G.%20F.%20E.%20C.&rft.date=2015-07&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=495&rft.epage=502&rft.pages=495-502&rft.issn=0305-182X&rft.eissn=1365-2842&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/joor.12280&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1691012332%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1691012332&rft_id=info:pmid/25678327&rfr_iscdi=true |