Turkish adaptation and implementation of the modified infection control questionnaire in intraoral digital imaging

Year 2020, Volume: 54 Issue: 3, 130 - 135, 05.01.2021

Melih Ozdede Zuhre Akarslan Bulent Altunkaynak Ilkay Peker

https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20200129

Abstract

Purpose: There are very few studies evaluating the knowledge of dentists about infection precautions in oral radiology. The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the modified form of a developed questionnaire and to apply this questionnaire to Turkish dentists.
Materials and Methods: The questionnaire was applied to a sample of 250 dentists for the scale development [200 for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and 50 for control] and 173 dentists for the implementation of the scale. The scale was applied to 200 dentists and construct validity was examined with CFA. For model fit; 2/df ratio, RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), GFI (goodness of fit index), AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit index) and NFI (normed fit index) were obtained. Also, reliability analysis was applied and item-total correlations and Cronbach’s alpha values were given. Adapted scale scores using a different sample of 173 dentists were compared according to demographic characteristics.
Results: CFA showed good fit statistics (2/df=1.511, RMSEA=0.057, TLI=0.942, CFI=0.953, GFI=0.926, AGFI=0.900, NFI=0.928) for the scale. Item-total correlations were over 0.30 and Cronbach’s alpha was calculated as 0.877. In addition, experienced dentists had higher scores in the dimension of personal hygiene (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: The Turkish version of the modified infection control questionnaire in oral radiology showed adequate psychometric properties. This indicated that it could be a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of infection control in oral radiology among Turkish dentists.

Keywords

infection control, cross infection, dentistry, radiology, questionnaires

Supporting Institution

The authors declared that they have received no financial support.

Thanks

We are grateful to the Turkish Dental Association (TDB) for increasing the number of respondents in this study.

References

• 1. Araujo MW, Andreana S. Risk and prevention of transmission of infectious diseases in dentistry. Quintessence Int 2002;33:376–82.
• 2. Peker I, Ozdede M. Intraoral dijital görüntülemede enfeksiyon kontrolü. Turkiye Klinikleri J Oral Maxillofac Radiol-Special Topics 2016;2:55–60.
• 3. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology, principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: Missouri: Mosby; 2014.
• 4. Ozsevik S, Cicek E, Bodrumlu E, Guney AK. Bacterial survival in the radiographic processes. Minerva Stomatol 2012;61:135–40.
• 5. Kohn WG, Collins AS, Cleveland JL, Harte JA, Eklund KJ, Malvitz DM et al. Guidelines for infection control in dental health-care settings--2003. MMWR Recomm Rep 2003;52:1–61.
• 6. Charuakkra A, Prapayasatok S, Janhom A, Verochana K, Mahasantipiya P. Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017;46:20160253.
• 7. Recommended infection-control practices for dentistry, 1993. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep 1993;42:1–12.
• 8. Gamoh S, Akiyama H, Maruyama H, Ohshita N, Nakayama M, Matsumoto K et al. Compliance with infection control practices when taking dental x-rays: Survey of a Japanese dental school. Clin Exp Dent Res 2018;4:158–66.
• 9. da Costa ED, Pinelli C, da Silva Tagliaferro EP, Corrente JE, Ambrosano GMB. Development and validation of a questionnaire to evaluate infection control in oral radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017;46:20160338.
• 10. da Costa ED, da Costa AD, Lima CAS, Possobon RF, Ambrosano GMB. The assessment of adherence to infection control in oral radiology using newly developed and validated questionnaire (QICOR). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018;47:20170437.
• 11. Comrey AL, Lee HL. A first course in factor analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum; 1992.
• 12. Guilford JP. Psychometric methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 1954.
• 13. Tavsancil E. Tutumların olculmesi ve spss ile veri analizi. 1st ed. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık; 2002.
• 14. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 1st ed. NY: Guilford Press; 2006, p.1-412.
• 15. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Elect J Bus Res Methods 2008;6:53–60.
• 16. Miles J, Shevlin M. A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Pers Individ Dif 2007;42:869–74.
• 17. Raykov T, Marcoulides GA. A first course in structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006, p.1-43.
• 18. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res Online 2003;8:23-74.
• 19. Vieira AL. Interactive LISREL in practice. 1st ed. London: Springer; 2011, p.1-4.
• 20. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modelling 1999;6,1–55.
• 21. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural models. Newbury Park: Sage, 1993, p.136-162.
• 22. Choi JW. Perforation rate of intraoral barriers for direct digital radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44:20140245.
• 23. Yuzbasioglu E, Sarac D, Canbaz S, Sarac YS, Cengiz S. A survey of cross-infection control procedures: knowledge and attitudes of Turkish dentists. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:565–9.