# Translation, cultural adaptation, and pilot testing of the standardized tool for the assessment of bruxism and the bruxism screener in China

## TL;DR

This paper describes the translation and testing of two tools for bruxism in China, showing they are clear and practical for use.

## Contribution

The paper provides a culturally adapted Chinese version of bruxism assessment tools with pilot testing results.

## Key findings

- The Chinese STAB and BruxScreen showed high comprehensibility with minimal need for clarification.
- BruxScreen demonstrated excellent test-retest and inter-examiner reliability.
- Dentists found both tools clinically feasible for use in practice.

## Abstract

Background: The newly established Standardized Tool for the Assessment
of Bruxism (STAB) and the bruxism screener (BruxScreen) offer thorough,
methodical, and readily available instruments for the evaluation and
screening of
bruxism in clinical settings and research endeavors. Methods: The
Chinese version provided is a translation of the original English text. The
Chinese version of the STAB/BruxScreen was developed in accordance with the
12-step guideline for translation and cultural adaptation established by the
expert group. The translation team consisted of 13 members: 4 study coordinators,
2 forward translators, 2 rear translators, and 5 expert panelists.
Simultaneously, the Chinese iteration of the STAB and BruxScreen underwent pilot
testing to assess its comprehensibility and practicality. Pilot testing comprised
60 participants for the STAB (20 patients, 20 dental students, 20 dentists) and
40 independent volunteers for the BruxScreen (20 patients, 10 students, 10
dentists). Results: The STAB completion time averaged 17.8 minutes for
patients (self-report) and 11.4 minutes and 14.3 minutes for dentists and dental
students (examination), respectively. The BruxScreen-Q (questionnaire) completion
time averaged 1.6 minutes, and the BruxScreen-C (clinical examination) duration
averaged 1.8 minutes per patient. High comprehensibility was achieved, with
95.5% of the STAB items and 100% of the BruxScreen items requiring no
clarification. All 20 dentists (100%) endorsed both tools as clinically
feasible. The test-retest and inter-examiner reliability of the BruxScreen showed
excellent agreement (Kappa > 0.8, p < 0.001). Conclusions:
The Chinese versions demonstrate satisfactory preliminary comprehensibility and
feasibility; the BruxScreen shows excellent reliability. Comprehensive validation
in larger samples is required before these tools can be applied in clinical
practice or large-scale screening.