DC/TMD Examiner Protocol: Longitudinal Evaluation on Interexaminer Reliability
Objectives. The objectives of this study were to assess the interexaminer agreement between one “reference” (gold standard) and each of two examiners, using the DC/TMD examination method, Axis I and to evaluate whether a recalibration changed reliability values. Methods. Participants (4 healthy and...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2018-01-01
|
| Series: | Pain Research and Management |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/7474608 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832559078930382848 |
|---|---|
| author | Marit Slåttelid Skeie Paula Frid Manal Mustafa Jörg Aßmus Annika Rosén |
| author_facet | Marit Slåttelid Skeie Paula Frid Manal Mustafa Jörg Aßmus Annika Rosén |
| author_sort | Marit Slåttelid Skeie |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives. The objectives of this study were to assess the interexaminer agreement between one “reference” (gold standard) and each of two examiners, using the DC/TMD examination method, Axis I and to evaluate whether a recalibration changed reliability values. Methods. Participants (4 healthy and 12 TMD patients) in 2013 underwent a clinical examination according to DC/TMDs, Axis I. In 2014, additionally 16 participants (4 healthy and 12 TMD patients) were recruited. Two trainee examiners (one more experienced) and one “reference examiner” (gold standard) at both sessions assessed the participants. Calibration preparation (2013): The clinical protocol was sent to the trainee examiners with a request that its verbal commands should be learned by heart. An eight-hour-course was provided on the day preceding the examination session day. Recalibration preparation (2014): The same examiners in advance to this year’s examination session were also asked to recapture the protocol’s instructions (verbal commands to be learned by heart) and go through the information from the 2013 course and encouraged to contact by e-mail in case of unclear subjects. At a meeting prior to the examination session, they were also given the opportunities to ask questions. The interexaminer agreements in 2013 and 2014 between the “reference” and each examiner were analysed using Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficient, Cohen’s kappa, and consistency values. Results. For the majority of the gathered data, no clear change of agreement between 2013 and 2014 could be observed, and only one muscle zone in 2014 could show any clear difference in agreement between the examiners. Conclusions. No clear and consistent difference in the level of agreement between the two examiners could be observed, although one was more experienced than the other. Likewise, for most components of the DC/TMD tool, recalibration of examiners did not change the reliability findings. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-74904b3dd4244ab88fc84bd1bb414d34 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1203-6765 1918-1523 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Pain Research and Management |
| spelling | doaj-art-74904b3dd4244ab88fc84bd1bb414d342025-02-03T01:30:58ZengWileyPain Research and Management1203-67651918-15232018-01-01201810.1155/2018/74746087474608DC/TMD Examiner Protocol: Longitudinal Evaluation on Interexaminer ReliabilityMarit Slåttelid Skeie0Paula Frid1Manal Mustafa2Jörg Aßmus3Annika Rosén4Department of Clinical Dentistry, Pediatric Dentistry, The Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, NorwayDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital North Norway and Public Dental Service Competence Centre of North Norway and Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, NorwayOral Health Centre of Expertise in Western Norway, Hordaland, NorwayCentre for Clinical Research, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021 Bergen, NorwayDepartment of Clinical Dentistry, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, NorwayObjectives. The objectives of this study were to assess the interexaminer agreement between one “reference” (gold standard) and each of two examiners, using the DC/TMD examination method, Axis I and to evaluate whether a recalibration changed reliability values. Methods. Participants (4 healthy and 12 TMD patients) in 2013 underwent a clinical examination according to DC/TMDs, Axis I. In 2014, additionally 16 participants (4 healthy and 12 TMD patients) were recruited. Two trainee examiners (one more experienced) and one “reference examiner” (gold standard) at both sessions assessed the participants. Calibration preparation (2013): The clinical protocol was sent to the trainee examiners with a request that its verbal commands should be learned by heart. An eight-hour-course was provided on the day preceding the examination session day. Recalibration preparation (2014): The same examiners in advance to this year’s examination session were also asked to recapture the protocol’s instructions (verbal commands to be learned by heart) and go through the information from the 2013 course and encouraged to contact by e-mail in case of unclear subjects. At a meeting prior to the examination session, they were also given the opportunities to ask questions. The interexaminer agreements in 2013 and 2014 between the “reference” and each examiner were analysed using Bland–Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficient, Cohen’s kappa, and consistency values. Results. For the majority of the gathered data, no clear change of agreement between 2013 and 2014 could be observed, and only one muscle zone in 2014 could show any clear difference in agreement between the examiners. Conclusions. No clear and consistent difference in the level of agreement between the two examiners could be observed, although one was more experienced than the other. Likewise, for most components of the DC/TMD tool, recalibration of examiners did not change the reliability findings.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/7474608 |
| spellingShingle | Marit Slåttelid Skeie Paula Frid Manal Mustafa Jörg Aßmus Annika Rosén DC/TMD Examiner Protocol: Longitudinal Evaluation on Interexaminer Reliability Pain Research and Management |
| title | DC/TMD Examiner Protocol: Longitudinal Evaluation on Interexaminer Reliability |
| title_full | DC/TMD Examiner Protocol: Longitudinal Evaluation on Interexaminer Reliability |
| title_fullStr | DC/TMD Examiner Protocol: Longitudinal Evaluation on Interexaminer Reliability |
| title_full_unstemmed | DC/TMD Examiner Protocol: Longitudinal Evaluation on Interexaminer Reliability |
| title_short | DC/TMD Examiner Protocol: Longitudinal Evaluation on Interexaminer Reliability |
| title_sort | dc tmd examiner protocol longitudinal evaluation on interexaminer reliability |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/7474608 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maritslattelidskeie dctmdexaminerprotocollongitudinalevaluationoninterexaminerreliability AT paulafrid dctmdexaminerprotocollongitudinalevaluationoninterexaminerreliability AT manalmustafa dctmdexaminerprotocollongitudinalevaluationoninterexaminerreliability AT jorgaßmus dctmdexaminerprotocollongitudinalevaluationoninterexaminerreliability AT annikarosen dctmdexaminerprotocollongitudinalevaluationoninterexaminerreliability |