We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.
VALIDATION STUDIES
Interexaminer reliability and clinical validity of the temporomandibular index: a new outcome measure for temporomandibular disorders.
AIMS: The operational definitions for the Craniomandibular Index (CMI) were redesigned to conform precisely to those of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD), resulting in a single examination protocol, the Temporomandibular Index (TMI). The objectives were to evaluate interexaminer reliability of the TMI as well as its criteria and construct validity for measurement of TMD severity.
METHODS: Interexaminer reliability of the TMI was assessed on 12 subjects. Criterion validity of the TMI was evaluated relative to the CMI, the latter having established validity. Construct validity of the TMI was evaluated for its capacity to differentiate TMD patients (n = 79) from normal subjects (n = 20) and to detect changes in severity over time.
RESULTS: The examiner's average TMI scores were 0.27 +/- 0.19 (SD) and 0.26 +/- 0.20. Agreement was excellent, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.93. The scores for the TMI and the CMI correlated highly, with an ICC of 0.97. Statistical contrasts between the symptomatic groups and the normal subjects were highly significant (P < .001). In 20 TMD patients who underwent treatment for their disorder, their mean change of 0.12 from their pretreatment TMI scores was highly significant (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: This study has provided statistical evidence for the clinical reliability and validity of the TMI, which indicates that the RDC examination protocol is appropriate for determining TMD severity by the TMI algorithm, and diagnosis of TMD subtypes by the RDC algorithm.
METHODS: Interexaminer reliability of the TMI was assessed on 12 subjects. Criterion validity of the TMI was evaluated relative to the CMI, the latter having established validity. Construct validity of the TMI was evaluated for its capacity to differentiate TMD patients (n = 79) from normal subjects (n = 20) and to detect changes in severity over time.
RESULTS: The examiner's average TMI scores were 0.27 +/- 0.19 (SD) and 0.26 +/- 0.20. Agreement was excellent, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.93. The scores for the TMI and the CMI correlated highly, with an ICC of 0.97. Statistical contrasts between the symptomatic groups and the normal subjects were highly significant (P < .001). In 20 TMD patients who underwent treatment for their disorder, their mean change of 0.12 from their pretreatment TMI scores was highly significant (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: This study has provided statistical evidence for the clinical reliability and validity of the TMI, which indicates that the RDC examination protocol is appropriate for determining TMD severity by the TMI algorithm, and diagnosis of TMD subtypes by the RDC algorithm.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app