NOHSS Child Indicators – 2006
Methods for State Oral Health Surveys that began data collection in 2006
Updated January 21, 2015
Colorado
The survey was conducted during the 2006-2007 school year. All public elementary schools with at least 10 children in third grade were included in the sampling frame. Using probability proportional to size sampling along with implicit stratification by percent of children eligible for the free and/or reduced price meal program, 56 elementary schools were selected and 49 agreed to participate. Children in kindergarten and 3rd grade were screened. The diagnostic criteria were comparable to ASTDD’s 1999 Basic Screening Survey. The response rate was 84% for kindergarten and 79% for 3rd grade children. The data were self-weighting and the estimates are presented adjusted and unadjusted for nonresponse.
Connecticut
Head Start: The survey was completed during the 2006-2007 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all Head Start sites in CT. With implicit stratification by county, a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 20 sites of which all agreed to participate. Trained examiners completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD’s 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 1001 eligible children, 609 were screened; for a response rate of 77%. The estimates presented are not adjusted for nonresponse.
Kindergarten & 3rd Grade: The survey was conducted during the 2006-2007 school year. The sampling frame consisted of public elementary schools with at least 25 students in kindergarten and/or 3rd grade. The sampling frame was stratified by county then ordered within each county by percent of children that participate in the free/reduced school lunch (FRL) program. A probability sample of 78 elementary schools was selected, of which 76 agreed to participate. The screenings were completed using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD’s 1999 Basic Screening Survey. The survey used passive consent with 81% of the enrolled children being screened. The percentage of children in the participating schools eligible for FRL was 37% while 35% of elementary school students in the sampling frame were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme and nonresponse.
Massachusetts
The survey was conducted during the 2006-2007 school year. The sampling plan involved stratification by county and two-stage cluster sampling within counties . First, all Massachusetts public elementary schools with 20 or more children enrolled in 3rd grade were identified. Schools were listed by county (n=14); within county, schools were ranked in decreasing order by percent of children eligible for the free or reduced cost school lunch program, a proxy for socioeconomic status. Within each county stratum, a two-stage cluster sampling methodology was used to select 133 schools of which 106 agreed to participate. If the selected school did not include kindergarten students the appropriate feeder school was also selected. The screenings were completed by 10 calibrated dentists and dental hygienists using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD’s 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the students selected, 48% were screened. The percentage of participating children eligible for the free or reduced price lunch (FRL) program was 28% among third graders and 31% among kindergarten children (statewide, 32% of elementary school students were eligible for FRL). The estimates presented are adjusted for the complex sampling scheme.
Oregon
The survey was conducted during the 2006-2007 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with 10 or more students enrolled in 3rd grade. A stratified probability sample of 88 schools was selected and 73 agreed to participate. Children in 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades were screened using a combination of positive and passive consent. The response rate for all grades was 79%. The diagnostic criteria were comparable to ASTDD’s 1999 Basic Screening Survey. In the state and the participating schools, 47% of students were eligible for the free/reduced lunch program (FRL). The estimates presented are weighted to account for the survey design and were adjusted for nonresponse.