The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. II: Reliability of Axis I Diagnoses and Selected Clinical Measures

Aims: The primary aim was to determine new estimates for the measurement reliability of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms. A second aim was to present data on the reliability of key clinical measures of the diagnostic algorithms. Methods: Kappa (k ), computed by generalized estimate equation procedures, was selected as the primary estimate of interexaminer reliability. Intersite reliability of six examiners from three study sites was assessed annually over the 5-year period of the RDC/TMD Validation Project. Intrasite reliability was monitored throughout the validation study by comparing RDC/TMD data collections performed on the same day by the test examiner and a criterion examiner. Results: Intersite calibrations included a total of 180 subjects. Intersite reliability of RDC/TMD diagnoses was excellent ( k> 0.75) when myofascial pain diagnoses (Ia or Ib) were grouped. Good reliability was observed for discrete myofascial pain diagnoses Ia ( k= 0.62) and Ib (k = 0.58), for disc displacement with reduction ( k= 0.63), disc displacement without reduction with limited opening ( = 0.62), arthralgia (k = 0.55), and when joint pain (IIIa or IIIb) was grouped ( = 0.59). Reliability of less frequently observed diagnoses such as disc displacements without reduction without limited opening, and osteoarthrosis (IIIb, IIIc), was poor to marginally fair (k = 0.31-0.43). Intrasite monitoring results (n = 705) approximated intersite reliability estimates. The greatest difference in paired estimates was 0.18 (IIc). Conclusion: Reliability of the RDC/TMD protocol was good to excellent for myofascial pain, arthralgia, disc displacement with reduction, and disc displacement without reduction with limited opening. Reliability was poor to marginally fair for disc displacement without reduction without limited opening and osteoarthrosis.

diagnostic criteria;reliability;temporomandibular joint disorders;temporomandibular muscle and joint disorders

1. Dworkin SF, LeResche L. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord Facial Oral Pain 1992;6:301–355.

2. Smith TW. Measurement in health psychology research. In: Friedman HS, Silver RC. Foundations of Health Psychology. New York: Oxford University, 2007:19–51.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Goulet JP, Clark GT, Flack VF. Reproducibility of examiner performance for muscle and joint palpation in the temporomandibular system following training and calibration. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993;21:72–77.

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

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

8. Conti PC, dos Santos CN, Lauris JR. Interexaminer agreement for muscle palpation procedures: The efficacy of a calibration program. Cranio 2002;20:289–294.

9. John MT, Dworkin SF, Mancl LA. Reliability of clinical temporomandibular disorder diagnoses. Pain 2005;118: 61–69.

10. List T, John MT, Dworkin SF, Svensson P. Recalibration improves inter-examiner reliability of TMD examination. Acta Odontol Scand 2006;64:146–152.

11. Lobbezoo F, van Selms MK, John MT, et al. Use of the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders for multinational research: Translation efforts and reliability assessments in The Netherlands. J Orofac Pain 2005;19:301–308.

12. Schmitter M, Ohlmann B, John MT, Hirsch C, Rammelsberg P. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: A calibration and reliability study. Cranio 2005;23:212–218.

13. Truelove EL, Pan W, Look JO, et al. The research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. III. Validity of axis I diagnoses. J Orofac Pain 2010;24:35–47.

14. Schiffman EL, Truelove EL, Ohrbach R, et al. The research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. I. Overview and methodology for assessment of validity. J Orofac Pain 2010;24:7–24.

15. Williamson JM, Lipsitz SR, Manatunga AK. Modeling kappa for measuring dependent categorical agreement data. Biostatistics 2000;1:191–202.

16. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assess-ing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420–428.

17. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience, 2003.

18. John MT, Hirsch C, Reiber T, Dworkin SF. Translating the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders into German: Evaluation of content and process. J Orofac Pain 2006;20:43–52.

19. Khoo S, Yap AJ, Chan YH, Bulgiba AM. Translating the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders into Malay: Evaluation of content and process. J Orofac Pain 2008;22:131–138.

20. Pehling J, Schiffman E, Look J, Shaefer J, Lenton P, Fricton J. Interexaminer reliability and clinical validity of the temporomandibular index: A new outcome measure for temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain 2002;16: 296–304.

21. Lausten LL, Glaros AG, Williams K. Inter-examiner reliability of physical assessment methods for assessing temporomandibular disorders. Gen Dent 2004;52:509–513.

22. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S,et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637–639.

23. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191–1194.

24. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clin Chem 2003;49:1–6.

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

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