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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of oral rehabilitation 2015-07, Vol.42 (7), p.495-502
Hauptverfasser: van Linden van den Heuvell, G. F. E. C., de Boer, B., ter Pelkwijk, B. J., Bildt, M. M., Stegenga, B.
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 &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2015 John Wiley &amp; 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