Objective To evaluate the reliability and criterion validity of the Gum Health Experience Questionnaire (GHEQ) among Saudi adults to generate initial psychometric evidence ahead of a larger confirmatory validation. Methods The study adopted a cross-sectional design and was conducted among 56 adults visiting dental hygiene clinics at King Saud University. Participants completed GHEQ 64-item and underwent clinical periodontal examination including plaque and gingival index. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, reliability assessment, item-total correlations, and criterion validity evaluation through correlation with clinical parameters. Results The study population comprised 51.8% females with mean age 23.8 ± 7.3 years. GHEQ internal consistency assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega found to be 0.957 and 0.962 for total score and 0.941 and 0.962 for impact score, respectively. Subscale reliability ranged from 0.800 (changes in everyday life) to 0.949 (psychological impacts). Mean total GHEQ score was 112.4 ± 41.4 (range: 55-228), while mean impact score was 13.9 ± 11.1 (range: 0-55). Item-total correlations were generally strong, with most items correlations >0.4. Conclusions The study provides preliminary evidence that the GHEQ may exhibits promising psychometric properties in a Saudi population, with reliability coefficients closely paralleling those of the original UK validation. The study preliminary findings suggest that GHEQ multidimensional structure may, once more fully validated, be capable of distinguishing which aspects of gum health matter most to individual patients, complementing clinical assessment. Future research studies should prioritise confirmatory factor analysis, test-retest reliability assessment, Arabic translation, and broader population sampling to confirm the validation process. Trial registration The study registered at https://ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06079307) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06079307 , on 16 October 2023, prior to recruitment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Talakey et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: