Share Page:

Volume 28 , Issue 2
March/April 2013

Pages 453460

The Toronto Outcome Measure for Craniofacial Prosthetics: Reliability and Validity of a Condition-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument

James D. Anderson, BSc, DDS, MScD/Dennis A. Johnston, BS, MA, PhD/Gil S. Haugh, BS, MS/Sudarat Kiat-amnuay, DDS, MS/Lawrence Gettleman, BA, DMD, MSD

PMID: 23527347
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2551

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to refine the Toronto Outcome Measure for Craniofacial Prosthetics (TOMCP), present evidence for its reliability and validity, and use the instrument to explore differences in quality of life between prostheses made with chlorinated polyethylene (CPE) (experimental) and silicone (control). Materials and Methods: As part of a multicenter prospective controlled randomized double-blind singlecrossover clinical trial of the two materials, the TOMCP was administered at the start and end of two 4-month study arms, during which 42 patients wore prostheses made from one material then the other. Reliability was assessed at the crossover. To determine validity of the TOMCP, the Linear Analogue Self-Assessment (LASA-12) and the Short-Form 8 (SF-8) were also administered with the TOMCP. The TOMCP was reduced by removing items that were unreliable, had poorly distributed answers, showed increased internal consistency after their removal, or were too highly correlated with more than one other item. The tests of reliability and validity were then repeated. Finally, the reduced instrument was used to test for differences in quality of life between prostheses made of the two materials. Results: The item reduction tactics pared the 52-item instrument down to 27 items. The correlations of both TOMCP versions with the LASA-12 and the SF-8 were found to be statistically significant, providing evidence of the validity of the TOMCP. The instrument revealed significantly better quality of life with silicone rather than CPE prostheses. Conclusions: Both versions of the TOMCP were found to be reliable and valid. The instrument was able to show differences in quality of life between two materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:453460. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2551

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us