Validity and Reliability According to the Type of Examiners in the Process of Calibrating Dental Caries Experience Using the DMFT Index.

IF 2.3 Q3 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS Methods and Protocols Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.3390/mps7050083
Anna Paola Fernández-Coll, María Claudia Garcés-Elías, Jorge A Beltrán, Roberto A León-Manco, Janett Mas-López
{"title":"Validity and Reliability According to the Type of Examiners in the Process of Calibrating Dental Caries Experience Using the DMFT Index.","authors":"Anna Paola Fernández-Coll, María Claudia Garcés-Elías, Jorge A Beltrán, Roberto A León-Manco, Janett Mas-López","doi":"10.3390/mps7050083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The process of examiner calibration is an essential step in all epidemiological research, as it aims to ensure uniform interpretation, understanding, and application of the instrument to be used. This ensures that the data collected will be valid and reliable. This study aimed to determine the differences in concordance in dental caries calibration across three dental specialties. The population consisted of 45 dentists, divided into three groups: 15 general dentists working in the public sector, 15 dentists specializing in Dental Public Health, and 15 dentists specializing in Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry. The calibration process was carried out in three stages: theory, calibration using photographs, and calibration on natural teeth, performed by the gold standard. In the first validity process, a statistical difference was only found between the Kappa values of the inter-examiner calibration process using photographs. For the evaluation of teeth, in the second validity process, 33.33% (n = 15) of the participants achieved \"almost perfect agreement.\" Finally, only 75.56% (n = 34) of the examiners were considered for the reliability report; of this group, 52.94% (n = 18) were in \"almost perfect agreement,\" and 35.29% (n = 12) were in \"substantial agreement.\" The validity and reliability of the dental caries experience calibration process did not present significant statistical differences between general dentists in the public sector, dentists specializing in Dental Public Health, and dentists specializing in Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry.</p>","PeriodicalId":18715,"journal":{"name":"Methods and Protocols","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11510506/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods and Protocols","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/mps7050083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The process of examiner calibration is an essential step in all epidemiological research, as it aims to ensure uniform interpretation, understanding, and application of the instrument to be used. This ensures that the data collected will be valid and reliable. This study aimed to determine the differences in concordance in dental caries calibration across three dental specialties. The population consisted of 45 dentists, divided into three groups: 15 general dentists working in the public sector, 15 dentists specializing in Dental Public Health, and 15 dentists specializing in Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry. The calibration process was carried out in three stages: theory, calibration using photographs, and calibration on natural teeth, performed by the gold standard. In the first validity process, a statistical difference was only found between the Kappa values of the inter-examiner calibration process using photographs. For the evaluation of teeth, in the second validity process, 33.33% (n = 15) of the participants achieved "almost perfect agreement." Finally, only 75.56% (n = 34) of the examiners were considered for the reliability report; of this group, 52.94% (n = 18) were in "almost perfect agreement," and 35.29% (n = 12) were in "substantial agreement." The validity and reliability of the dental caries experience calibration process did not present significant statistical differences between general dentists in the public sector, dentists specializing in Dental Public Health, and dentists specializing in Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在使用 DMFT 指数校准龋齿经验的过程中,根据考官类型确定有效性和可靠性。
考官校准过程是所有流行病学研究中必不可少的一步,因为它旨在确保对所用工具的统一解释、理解和应用。这样才能确保收集到的数据有效可靠。本研究旨在确定三个牙科专业在龋齿校准方面的一致性差异。研究对象包括 45 名牙医,分为三组:15 名在公共部门工作的普通牙医、15 名牙科公共卫生专业牙医和 15 名牙科修复与美容专业牙医。校准过程分三个阶段进行:理论、使用照片进行校准和使用金标准在天然牙齿上进行校准。在第一个验证过程中,仅在使用照片的检查员间校准过程中发现了 Kappa 值之间的统计差异。对于牙齿评估,在第二个验证过程中,33.33%(n = 15)的参与者达到了 "几乎完全一致"。最后,只有 75.56% 的检查者(n = 34)被考虑用于可靠性报告;其中,52.94% 的检查者(n = 18)达到了 "几乎完全一致",35.29% 的检查者(n = 12)达到了 "基本一致"。龋齿经验校准过程的有效性和可靠性在公共部门的普通牙医、牙科公共卫生专业的牙医和牙科修复与美容专业的牙医之间没有明显的统计学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Methods and Protocols
Methods and Protocols Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
eDNA-Based Survey of Fish Species in Water Bodies Using Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) for Application of Developing Automatic Sampler. Activity Identification, Classification, and Representation of Wheelchair Sport Court Tasks: A Method Proposal. Validity and Reliability According to the Type of Examiners in the Process of Calibrating Dental Caries Experience Using the DMFT Index. A Versatile Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Full-Scan High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Method to Quantify Wine Polyphenols. Evaluating Age-Friendly Health Care Approaches in Rural Primary Care Settings: A Multi-Case, Mixed-Methods Hybrid Type 2 Effectiveness-Implementation Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1