NOHSS Child Indicators – 2009

Methods for State Oral Health Surveys that began data collection in 2009

Updated January 21, 2015

Arizona

The survey was completed during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of public elementary schools with 10 or more students in 3rd grade. Special schools (e.g. alternative and detention) and schools located in tribal communities or on reservation were excluded from the sampling frame. Within each county, schools were sorted by percent of students eligible for the free/reduced school lunch program (FRL) and a systematic probability proportional to size sampling scheme was used to select 100 schools of which 99 agreed to participate. Twenty-two trained and calibrated dental hygienists completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 8566 eligible students, 3150 were screened; for a response rate of 37%. In the state, 48% of public elementary school students participate in the FRL program while 51% of the students in the participating schools were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme and nonresponse.

Arkansas

The survey was completed during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with a 3rd grade class. A probability sample, stratified by county, of 125 schools was selected of which 115 agreed to participate. Ten trained dental hygienists completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 8000 eligible students in 3rd grade, 4239 were screened; for a response rate of 53%. In the state, 65% of schoolchildren are eligible for the free/reduced price lunch program (FRL); among students attending schools in the sample, 55% were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme but are not adjusted for nonresponse.

Michigan

The survey was conducted during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of public elementary schools with at least 15 students in 3rd grade. Probability proportional to size sampling was used to select 76 schools; of which 75 participated. The survey followed the methods outlined in ASTDD's Basic Screening Survey using 20 volunteer dental hygienists. Only children who returned a positive consent form were screened. Of the 6324 eligible students, 2056 were screened; for a response rate of 33%. The percentage of participating children eligible for the free/reduced price school lunch program (FRL) was 48% while 42% of elementary students in the state were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme and nonresponse.

Minnesota

The survey was conducted during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with 10 or more students enrolled in 3rd grade. A simple random sample of 50 schools was selected and 40 agreed to participate. Only children who returned a positive consent form were screened. Of the 3054 eligible students, 1766 were screened for a response rate of 58%. In the state, 43% of public elementary school students participate in the free/reduced price school lunch program (FRL) while 38% of the students in the 40 participating schools were eligible for FRL. The survey followed the methods outlined in ASTDD's Basic Screening Survey. The data were self-weighting and the estimates presented are not adjusted for nonresponse.

Mississippi

The survey was completed during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with one or more students in 3rd grade. With implicit stratification by health district and percent of students eligible for the free/reduced school lunch program (FRL), a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 45 schools. Dental hygienists completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 3483 eligible students, 1928 were screened; for a response rate of 55%. In the state, 72% of public elementary school students participate in the free/reduced lunch program (FRL); 73% of the students screened were eligible for FRL. The data were self-weighting and the estimates are presented adjusted for nonresponse.

New York

The survey was conducted during the 2009-2012 school years. The sampling frame consisted of public elementary schools with 3rd grade. A stratified probability sample of 370 schools was selected and 270 agreed to participate. Only those children that returned a positive consent form were screened. The statewide response rate was 36%. The survey followed the methods outlined in ASTDD's Basic Screening Survey. In the state, 52% of schoolchildren are eligible for the free/reduced lunch program (FRL); among students attending the participating schools, 44% were eligible for FRL. The data were weighted for the sampling scheme and adjusted for nonresponse.

North Dakota

The survey was completed during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) elementary schools with five or more students in 3rd grade. With implicit stratification by urban/rural status and percent of students eligible for the free/reduced school lunch program (FRL), a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 47 schools. Four examiners completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 1669 eligible students, 1499 were screened; for a response rate of 90%. In the state, 36% of public and BIA elementary school students participate in the FRL program; 36% of the students in the participating schools participate in the FRL program. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme and nonresponse.

Ohio

The survey was conducted during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools that participate in the free or reduced price school lunch (FRL) program with 25 or more students enrolled in 3rd grade. A stratified cluster sampling scheme was used to select a sample of 398 schools. Of the 33625 3rd grade children enrolled in the 398 schools, 16839 were screened for a response rate of 50%. The survey followed the methods outlined in ASTDD's Basic Screening Survey. In the state, 45% of schoolchildren are eligible for the FRL program; among participating students, 44% were eligible for FRL. The data were weighted for the sampling scheme and adjusted for nonresponse.

Oklahoma

The survey was completed during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public and private elementary schools with five or more students in 3rd grade. With implicit stratification by geographic area and percent of students eligible for the free/reduced school lunch program (FRL), a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 36 schools. Three dentists completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 1773 eligible students, 751 were screened; for a response rate of 42%. In the state, 61% of elementary school students participate in the free/reduced lunch program (FRL); 61% of the students in the participating schools were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme.

South Dakota

The survey was completed during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public, private and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary schools with three or more students in 3rd grade. With implicit stratification by size of school and percent of students eligible for the free/reduced school lunch program (FRL), a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 32 schools of which 30 agreed to participate. Volunteer dentists completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 1058 eligible students, 570 were screened; for a response rate of 54%. In the state, 32% of public elementary school students participate in the free/reduced lunch program (FRL); 42% of the students screened were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme and nonresponse.

Vermont

The survey was conducted during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with 20 or more students enrolled in 1st, 2nd or 3rd grade. With implicit stratification by geographic region and percent of students eligible for the free/reduced price school lunch (FRL) program , a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 22 schools. Of the 1841 children in 1st-3rd grade, 788 were screened for a response rate of 43%. The survey followed the methods outlined in ASTDD's Basic Screening Survey. In the state, 41% of schoolchildren are eligible for the FRL program; among participating students, 39% were eligible for FRL. The data were weighted for the sampling scheme and adjusted for nonresponse.

Washington

Head Start: The survey was completed during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all Head Start centers in WA. A systematic sampling scheme was used to select 48 centers. Trained examiners completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 2105 eligible children, 1597 were screened; for a response rate of 76%. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme and nonresponse.

Kindergarten & 3rd Grade: The survey was completed during the 2009-2010 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with 25 or more students in kindergarten and/or 3rd grade. With implicit stratification by percent of students eligible for the free/reduced price school lunch (FRL) program, a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 53 schools of which 53 agreed to participate. Trained dentists and dental hygienists completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 7056 eligible students in kindergarten and 3rd grade, 5741 were screened; for a response rate of 81%. In the state, 45% of public elementary school students participate in the FRL program; 48% of the students screened were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme and nonresponse.

 Top of Page