NOHSS Child Indicators – 2011

Methods for State Oral Health Surveys that began data collection in 2011

Updated January 21, 2015

Alabama

The survey was conducted during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with 20 or more students in 3rd grade. With implicit stratification by dental district and percent of students eligible for the free/reduced price school lunch (FRL) program, a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 63 schools with 3rd grade. If the selected school did not have kindergarten, the appropriate feeder school was also screened. Data is available for all 63 schools. Of the 10,547 children in kindergarten and 3rd grade, 9057 were screened for a response rate of 86%. The survey followed the methods outlined in ASTDD's Basic Screening Survey. In the state, 60% of elementary schoolchildren are eligible for the FRL program; among participating schools 60% were eligible for FRL. The data were weighted for the sampling scheme and adjusted for nonresponse.

Iowa

The survey was completed during the 2011-2012 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with 3rd grade. The sampling frame was stratified by Title V region with schools randomly selected within each region. Thirty-two schools were selected. Trained dental hygienists completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 1731 eligible students in 3rd grade, 926 were screened; for a response rate of 53%. In the state, 44% of public elementary school students participate in the FRL program; 35% of the participating students were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme.

Kansas

The survey was conducted during the 2011-2012 school year. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with 10 or more students in 3rd grade. With implicit stratification by urban/rural status and percent of students eligible for the free/reduced price school lunch (FRL) program , a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 66 schools of which 65 participated. Of the 3474 children in 3rd grade, 2090 were screened for a response rate of 60%. The survey followed the methods outlined in ASTDD's Basic Screening Survey. In the state, 50% of schoolchildren are eligible for the FRL program; among participating students, 43% were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme but are not adjusted for non-response.

Maryland

The survey was completed during the 2011-2012 school year. The sampling frame consisted of public elementary schools with 25 or more students in kindergarten or 3rd grade in 23 of the state's 24 school districts. The sampling frame was stratified by region then by percent of students eligible for the free/reduced price school lunch (FRL) program. Probability proportional to size sampling was used to select 52 schools of which 50 participated. Trained dentists completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 8506 eligible students in kindergarten and 3rd grade, 1486 were screened; for a response rate of 17%.  In the state, 46% of elementary schoolchildren are eligible for the FRL program; among participating children 36% were eligible for FRL. The estimates presented are adjusted for the sampling scheme and nonresponse.

Nevada

The survey was completed during the 2011-2012 school year. All 39 Head Start centers in Nevada were asked to participate and all 39 agreed. Trained dental hygienists and dental hygiene students completed the screenings using diagnostic criteria comparable to ASTDD's 1999 Basic Screening Survey. Of the 2777 Head Start children in Nevada, 2257 were screened; for a response rate of 81%. The estimates presented are adjusted for non-response.

Oregon

The survey was conducted during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. The sampling frame consisted of all public elementary schools with 15 or more students in 3rd grade. With implicit stratification by health region and percent of students eligible for the free/reduced price school lunch (FRL) program, a systematic sampling scheme was used to select 81 schools with 3rd grade. If the selected school did not have 1st or 2nd grade, the appropriate feeder school was also screened. Data is available for all 81 schools. Of the 15,275 children in 1st-3rd grade, 5258 were screened for a response rate of 34%. The survey followed the methods outlined in ASTDD's Basic Screening Survey. In the state, 53% of elementary schoolchildren are eligible for the FRL program; among participating children 54% were eligible for FRL. The data were weighted for the sampling scheme and adjusted for nonresponse.

 Top of Page