Is There a Difference in the Reliable Measurement of Temporomandibular Disorder Signs Between Experienced and Inexperienced Examiners?

Aims: To determine whether there is a difference in terms of relia-bility between experienced examiners and inexperienced examiners in the measurement of signs of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Methods: A total of 27 patients seen for treatment of TMD were rated blindly and in random sequence by 2 experienced and 2 inexperienced examiners. The examiners participated in a 4-hour calibration session on the day preceding the reliability study. Both experienced and inexperienced examiners participated in the calibration session to reduce the effect of examiner subjectivity and allow the study focus to be on the effect of experience. The rating followed the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders and included mandibular movements, joint sounds, and digital palpation of muscles and joints. Intraclass correlation coef-ficients and kappa statistics were calculated to estimate interrater reliability. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to test for differences between experienced and inexperienced examiners’ results, and the Friedman test was used for differences between all 6 examiner combinations. Results: Excellent overall reliability was found for vertical mandibular motions, acceptable reliability was found for the summed muscle palpation pain sites, and moderate to poor reliability was found for excursive movements, joint sounds, and single muscle palpation pain sites. No significant dif-ferences in the measurement results could be found between the experienced examiners and the inexperienced examiners. Conclusion: Examiner calibration rather than professional experi-ence seems to be the most important factor for reliable measure-ment of TMD symptoms.

calibration; reliability; temporomandibular disorders

1. Dworkin SF, LeResche L, DeRouen T, Von Korff M. Assessing clinical signs of temporomandibular disorders: Reliability of clinical examiners. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63: 574–579.

2. Wahlund K, List T, Dworkin SF. Temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents: Reliability of a questionnaire, clinical examination, and diagnosis. J Orofac Pain 1998;12:42–51.

3. Dworkin SF, LeResche L, DeRouen T. Reliability of clinical measurement in temporomandibular disorders. Clin J Pain 1988;4:89–99.

4. Wabeke KB, Spruijt RJ, van der Zaag J. The reliability of clinical methods for recording joint sounds. J Dent Res 1994;73:1157–1162.

5. Goulet JP, Clark GT, Flack VF, Liu C. The reproducibility of muscle and joint tenderness detection methods and maximum mandibular movement measurement for the temporomandibular system. J Orofac Pain 1998;12: 17–26.

6. Westling L, Helkimo E, Mattiasson A. Observer variation in functional examination of the temporomandibular joint. J Craniomandib Disord 1992;6:202–207.

7. John MT, Zwijnenburg AJ. Interobserver variability in assessment of signs of TMD. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14: 265–270.

8. Dworkin SF, LeResche L. Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord 1992;6:301–355.

9. List T, Dworkin SF. Comparing TMD diagnoses and clinical findings at Swedish and US TMD centers using Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. J Orofac Pain 1996;10:240–253.

10. Dahlström L, Keeling SD, Fricton JR, Galloway Hilsenbeck S, Clark GM, Rugh JD. Evaluation of a training program intended to calibrate examiners of temporomandibular disorders. Acta Odontol Scand 1994;52:250–254.

11. Lobbezoo-Scholte AM, de Wijer A, Steenks MH, Bosman F. Interexaminer reliability of six orthopaedic tests in diagnostic subgroups of craniomandibular disorders. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:273–285.

12. Duinkerke AS, Luteijn F, Bouman TK, de Jong HP. Reproducibility of a palpation test for the stomatognathic system. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1986;14:80–85.

13. Smith JP. Observer variation in the clinical diagnosis of mandibular pain dysfunction syndrome. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1977;5:91–93.

14. John M. Prävalenz von kraniomandibulären Dysfunk-tionen. Dt Zahnaerztliche Zeitschrift 1999;5:302–309.

15. de Wijer A, Lobbezoo-Scholte AM, Steenks MH, Bosman F. Reliability of clinical findings in temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain 1995;9:181–191.

16. Stockstill JW, Gross AJ, McCall WD Jr. Interrater reliability in masticatory muscle palpation. J Craniomandib Disord 1989;3:143–146.

17. Fricton JR, Schiffman EL. Reliability of a craniomandibular index. J Dent Res 1986;65:1359–1364.

18. Carlsson GE, Egermark-Eriksson I, Magnusson T. Intra-and interobserver variation in functional examination of the masticatory system. Swed Dent J 1980;4:187–194.

19. Hunt RJ. Percent agreement, Pearson’s correlation and kappa as measures of inter-examiner reliability. J Dent Res 1986;65:128–130.

20. Kopp S, Wenneberg B. Intra- and interobserver variability in the assessment of signs of disorder in the stomatognathic system. Swed Dent J 1983;7:239–246.

21. Feinstein AR. Principles of medical statistics. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2002.

22. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.

23. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, v 8.0. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1999.

24. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:543–549.

25. Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:551–558.