Cited by 22Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDental Health and Care Utilization

Development and evaluation of the children’s experiences of dental anxiety measure

Open access
Porritt, Jenny, Morgan, Annie, Rodd, Helen, Gupta, Ekta, Gilchrist, Fiona, Baker, Sarah, Newton, Tim, Creswell, Cathy +2 more·2018·International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry

Abstract

Background: Existing measures of children's dental anxiety have not been developed with children or based on a theoretical framework of dental anxiety. Aim: To develop the children's experiences of dental anxiety measure (CEDAM) and evaluate the measure's properties. Design: The measure was developed from interviews with dentally anxious children. Children recruited from a dental hospital and secondary school completed the CEDAM and Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale (MCDAS). A subgroup of children completed the CEDAM before and after receiving an intervention to reduce dental anxiety to examine the measure's responsiveness. Rasch and Classical test analyses were undertaken. Results: Children were aged between 9 and 16 years (N = 88 recruited from a dental hospital and N = 159 recruited from a school). Rasch analysis confirmed the measure's unidimensionality. The CEDAM correlated well with the MCDAS (rho = 0.67, P < 0.01) and had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88) and test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.98). The CEDAM was also able to detect changes in dental anxiety following the intervention (baseline mean = 22.36, SD = 2.57 and follow‐up mean = 18.88, SD = 2.42, t(df = 37) = 9.54, P < 0.01, Cohen's d = 1.39). Conclusions: The results support the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the CEDAM. Initial findings indicate it has potential for use in future intervention trials or in clinical practice to monitor children's dental anxiety.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ipd.12315

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]13. Porritt JM, Buchanan H, Hall M, Gilchrist F, Marshman Z. Assessing children's dental anxiety: a systematic review of current measures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013; 41: 130-42.
  2. [32]32. behaviour on child dental patient anxiety and behaviour. Patient Educ Couns 2011; 85: 4-13. <!-- image --> Figure 1. Flow chart showing children's involvement as participants at different phases of the study Table 1. Fit of the CEDAM to the Rasch model | Analysis name | Item residual | Item residual | Person residual | Person residual | Chi-square | Chi-square | Reliability | |--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|--------------|--------------|---------------| | | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Value (df) | P | | | Initial analysis | -0.01 | -1.27 | -0.19 | 1.13 | 51(34) | 0.034 | 0.91 | | Rescore to 3 categories | -0.20 | 0.70 | -0.27 | 0.92 | 28 (28) | 0.271 | 0.86 | | Remove items 'walking out', 'explaining' and 'nervous' | -0.21 | 0.74 | -0.28 | 0.99 | 34 (34) | 0.447 | 0.88 | | Ideal | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | >0.004* | >0.7 |

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Porritt, J., Morgan, A., Rodd, H., Gupta, E., Gilchrist, F., Baker, S., Newton, T., Creswell, C., Williams, C., & Marshman, Z.
Affiliations
  • Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
  • Charles Clifford Dental Hospital (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • Gartnavel General Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Porritt, Jenny
Venue
International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-07-29
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
140-151
ISSN
  • 0960-7439 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-263X
OpenAlex
W2626627633
Cited by
22
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
  • SHURA (Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive) (Sheffield Hallam University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP_2014-04-018)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
Keywords
dental anxiety, children, Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale, anxiety assessment, psychometric properties, responsiveness, Rasch analysis, reliability and validity, anxiety intervention, children's experiences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Psychology, Child, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Dental Anxiety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review