Reliability, Construct Validity, Acceptability and Feasibility of the BruxScreen

TL;DR

The BruxScreen tool for assessing bruxism shows acceptable reliability and validity, but self-reported and clinical assessments do not agree.

Contribution

This study evaluates the BruxScreen's reliability, validity, acceptability, and feasibility in dental students.

Findings

BruxScreen-Q has fair to substantial intra-rater reliability.

BruxScreen-C reliability ranges from poor to excellent.

Self-reported and clinical bruxism assessments show no agreement.

Abstract

The recently developed BruxScreen consists of two parts: BruxScreen‐Q (self‐report questionnaire) and BruxScreen‐C (clinical assessment).

To test the intra‐ and inter‐rater reliability, construct validity, acceptability and feasibility of the BruxScreen‐Q and BruxScreen‐C and assess their concordance among Dutch dental students.

88 out of 109 potentially eligible dental master students completed a set of questionnaires two times (Q1; Q2) and participated in two clinical workshops (CE1; CE2), using the BruxScreen‐Q and BruxScreen‐C, respectively. Intra‐rater reliability of the BruxScreen‐Q and concordance between the BruxScreen‐Q and BruxScreen‐C were assessed using Cohen's (weighted) Kappa. Intra‐ and inter‐rater reliability of the BruxScreen‐C were analysed using intraclass correlation coefficients calculated from generalised linear mixed‐effects models. Construct validity of the BruxScreen‐Q was tested using Spearman's Rank Correlation or Mann–Whitney U test based on hypothesis testing. Acceptability and feasibility of the BruxScreen were assessed using descriptive statistics.

Intra‐rater reliability for BruxScreen‐Q was fair to substantial. Intra‐ and inter‐rater reliability for BruxScreen‐C varied from poor to excellent. BruxScreen‐Q showed moderate construct validity, based on the acceptable consistency between the actual and hypothesised effect size of the questionnaire items. BruxScreen‐Q (Q2) and BruxScreen‐C (CE2) were found both acceptable and feasible by a majority of the students. There was no agreement between subject‐based bruxism according to the BruxScreen‐Q and clinically based bruxism according to the BruxScreen‐C.

The BruxScreen demonstrates acceptable reliability, construct validity, acceptability and feasibility in assessing both subject‐based bruxism and clinically based bruxism. However, there is a discrepancy between self‐reported bruxism and the clinicians' diagnosis.

This study aimed to evaluate the reliability, construct validity, acceptability and feasibility of the BruxScreen‐Q and the BruxScreen‐C, as well as their concordance in a cohort of Dutch dental students.

Figures