A comparison of the reliability and validity of 3 occlusal indexes of orthodontic treatment need

被引:88
作者
Beglin, FM
Firestone, AR
Vig, KWL
Beck, FM
Kuthy, RA
Wade, D
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Dept Orthodont, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Dept Hlth Serv Res, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] Univ Iowa, Dept Prevent & Community Dent, Iowa City, IA USA
关键词
D O I
10.1067/mod.2001.116401
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Several occlusal indexes are currently used to ascertain eligibility for orthodontic treatment. A comparison of 3 indexes of orthodontic treatment need was made with the consensus opinion of a panel of 15 experienced orthodontists. Sets of study casts (170) representing the full spectrum of malocclusions were selected. An examiner, calibrated in the Dental Aesthetic Index, the Handicapping Labiolingual Deviation with the California Modification, and the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need, scored the casts. The panel of orthodontists individually rated the same casts for their degree of orthodontic treatment need. The mean rating of the panel on the need for treatment was used as the gold standard for evaluating the validity of the indexes. Intrarater and interrater reliability was high (kappa > 0.8). Overall accuracy of the indexes, as reflected in area under receiver-operating characteristic curves, was also high: Dental Aesthetic Index, 95%; Handicapping Labiolingual Deviation with the California Modification, 94%; and Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need, 98%. Cutoff points for the indexes that resulted in the closest agreement with the gold standard differed from the published cutoff points for the indexes. The indexes appear to be valid measures of treatment need as perceived by orthodontists. The published cutoff points for the indexes were more conservative in assigning patients for treatment than a panel of orthodontists. However, adjusting the cutoff points moved all 3 indexes into close agreement with the experts.
引用
收藏
页码:240 / 246
页数:7
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], DAI DENTAL AESTHETIC
[2]  
BECK JR, 1986, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V110, P13
[3]   THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDEX OF ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT PRIORITY [J].
BROOK, PH ;
SHAW, WC .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 1989, 11 (03) :309-320
[4]   A COEFFICIENT OF AGREEMENT FOR NOMINAL SCALES [J].
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1960, 20 (01) :37-46
[5]   THE VALIDATION OF THE PEER ASSESSMENT RATING INDEX FOR MALOCCLUSION SEVERITY AND TREATMENT DIFFICULTY [J].
DEGUZMAN, L ;
BAHIRAEI, D ;
VIG, KWL ;
VIG, PS ;
WEYANT, RJ ;
OBRIEN, K .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 1995, 107 (02) :172-176
[6]  
Draker H. L., 1960, AM J ORTHOD, V46, P295, DOI DOI 10.1016/0002-9416(60)90197-4
[7]   EQUIVALENCE OF WEIGHTED KAPPA AND INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AS MEASURES OF RELIABILITY [J].
FLEISS, JL ;
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1973, 33 (03) :613-619
[8]  
GRAINGER RM, 1967, PHS PUBLICATION 2, V1000
[9]   THE MEANING AND USE OF THE AREA UNDER A RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC (ROC) CURVE [J].
HANLEY, JA ;
MCNEIL, BJ .
RADIOLOGY, 1982, 143 (01) :29-36
[10]  
Howitt J W, 1967, N Y State Dent J, V33, P215