# Item Profile Supplement Summary Score Information in Short Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments

## TL;DR

Short oral health questionnaires can miss important differences between patient groups when only summary scores are considered.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that item-level analysis in short OHRQoL instruments reveals clinically relevant differences missed by summary scores.

## Key findings

- OHIP-14 item 'Painful aching' showed significant differences between surgical and operative dental patients.
- OHIP-5 had acceptable reliability and validity but fewer clinically meaningful differences compared to OHIP-14.
- Combining summary scores with item profiles improves interpretability of short OHRQoL instruments.

## Abstract

Background: Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) questionnaires characterize the impact of oral conditions. However, similar summary scores of abbreviated instruments may obscure differences in how oral diseases affect specific OHRQoL components. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare summary scores and item profiles (defined as all item prevalence scores) in two patient populations using short forms of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Methods: The psychometric properties of the Hungarian OHIP-14 (14 items) and OHIP-5 (5 items) were evaluated for reliability and validity. The summary scores and item prevalence were then compared between patients undergoing surgical procedures (n = 30) and operative dental procedures (n = 22). Significant differences emerged in the OHIP-14 items “Taste worse” (9% vs. 33%, p = 0.03) and “Painful aching” (91% vs. 47%, p < 0.001). Results: For OHIP-5, only “Painful aching” differed significantly. Both short forms showed acceptable psychometric performance (test–retest reliability: 0.87 and 0.86; Cronbach’s alpha: 0.88 and 0.66; validity with self-reported oral health: r = 0.48 and r = 0.51). Conclusions: Summary scores provide an overall assessment of OHRQoL, but item profiles reveal clinically relevant differences between patient groups. Combining both perspectives enhances the interpretability of short OHIP instruments and supports more targeted clinical and research applications.