• Reliability, Construct Validit...

Result: Reliability, Construct Validity, Acceptability and Feasibility of the BruxScreen.

Title:
Reliability, Construct Validity, Acceptability and Feasibility of the BruxScreen.
Authors:
Kessler LJ; Department of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., Verhoeff MC; Department of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., Chin T; Department of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., Su N; Department of Oral Public Health, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., Osman A; Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA., Mungia R; Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, The University of Texas Health Science at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA., Lobbezoo F; Department of Orofacial Pain and Dysfunction, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.; Department of Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
Source:
Journal of oral rehabilitation [J Oral Rehabil] 2026 Feb; Vol. 53 (2), pp. 415-429. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Nov 05.
Publication Type:
Journal Article; Validation Study
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Blackwell Scientific Publications Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 0433604 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1365-2842 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 0305182X NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Oral Rehabil Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Original Publication: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications.
MeSH Terms:
Students, Dental*/psychology , Self Report*, Humans ; Reproducibility of Results ; Feasibility Studies ; Male ; Female ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Netherlands ; Adult ; Observer Variation
References:
Med Educ. 2016 May;50(5):511-22. (PMID: 27072440)
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82. (PMID: 23092060)
J Oral Rehabil. 2020 May;47(5):549-556. (PMID: 31999846)
J Oral Rehabil. 2024 Jan;51(1):59-66. (PMID: 36843424)
J Oral Rehabil. 2018 Nov;45(11):837-844. (PMID: 29926505)
J Oral Rehabil. 2024 Jan;51(1):29-58. (PMID: 36597658)
Clin Kidney J. 2020 Nov 24;14(1):49-58. (PMID: 33564405)
J Oral Rehabil. 2013 Jan;40(1):2-4. (PMID: 23121262)
J Oral Rehabil. 2013 Nov;40(11):803-9. (PMID: 24112029)
J Oral Rehabil. 2024 Jan;51(1):67-73. (PMID: 37749858)
J Orthod. 2022 Sep;49(3):359-361. (PMID: 36017900)
Caspian J Intern Med. 2013 Spring;4(2):627-35. (PMID: 24009950)
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45. (PMID: 20494804)
J Oral Rehabil. 2019 Jul;46(7):617-623. (PMID: 30830687)
J Oral Rehabil. 2025 Sep;52(9):1335-1342. (PMID: 40312776)
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63. (PMID: 27330520)
J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Jan;43(1):69-80. (PMID: 26333037)
J Oral Rehabil. 2019 Nov;46(11):991-997. (PMID: 31264730)
Work. 2018;60(3):465-473. (PMID: 30040785)
J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2014 Winter;28(1):6-27. (PMID: 24482784)
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: bruxism; data accuracy; mass screening; reproducibility of results; self report; surveys and questionnaires
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20251105 Date Completed: 20260119 Latest Revision: 20260121
Update Code:
20260121
PubMed Central ID:
PMC12813516
DOI:
10.1111/joor.70093
PMID:
41190434
Database:
MEDLINE

Further information

Background: The recently developed BruxScreen consists of two parts: BruxScreen-Q (self-report questionnaire) and BruxScreen-C (clinical assessment).
Objectives: 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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.
Conclusion: 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.
(© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Oral Rehabilitation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)