Premium
Validity of the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index and the Peer Assessment Rating Index for comprehensive evaluation of malocclusion severity
Author(s) -
Liu S.,
Oh H.,
Chambers D. W.,
Baumrind S.,
Xu T.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
orthodontics and craniofacial research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1601-6343
pISSN - 1601-6335
DOI - 10.1111/ocr.12195
Subject(s) - intraclass correlation , malocclusion , peer assessment , medicine , judgement , orthodontics , inter rater reliability , index (typography) , rating scale , dentistry , correlation , statistics , clinical psychology , mathematics , psychometrics , geometry , world wide web , political science , computer science , law , medical education
Structured Abstract Objectives To assess the validity of the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index ( ABO ‐ DI ) and Peer Assessment Rating ( PAR ) Index in evaluating malocclusion severity in Chinese orthodontic patients. Setting and Sample Population A stratified random sample of 120 orthodontic patients based on Angle classification was collected from six university orthodontic centres. Material and Methods Sixty‐nine orthodontists rated malocclusion severity on a five‐point scale by assessing a full set of pre‐treatment records for each case and listed reasons for their decision. Their judgement was then compared with ABO ‐ DI and PAR scores determined by three calibrated examiners. Results Excellent interexaminer reliability of clinician judgement, ABO ‐ DI and PAR index was demonstrated by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (rho= 0.995, 0.990 and 0.964, respectively). Both the ABO ‐ DI and US ‐ PAR index showed good correlation with clinician judgement ( r =.700 and r =.707, respectively). There was variability among the different Angle classifications: the ABO ‐ DI showed the highest correlation with clinician judgement in Class II patients ( r =.780), whereas the US ‐ PAR index showed the highest correlation with clinician judgement in Class III patients ( r =.710). Both indices demonstrated the lowest correlations with clinician judgement in Class I patients. Conclusion With strong interexaminer agreement, the panel consensus was used for validating the ABO ‐ DI and US ‐ PAR index for malocclusion severity. Overall, the ABO ‐ DI and US ‐ PAR index were reliable for measuring malocclusion severity with significantly variable weightings for different Angle classifications. Further modification of the indices for different Angle classification may be indicated.