Interpreting weightings of the peer assessment rating index and the discrepancy index across contexts on Chinese patients

2Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: Determine optimal weightings of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and Discrepancy Index (DI) for malocclusion severity assessment in Chinese orthodontic patients. Methods: Sixty-nine Chinese orthodontists assessed a full set of pre-Treatment records from a stratified random sample of 120 subjects gathered from six university orthodontic centres. Using professional judgment as the outcome variable, multiple regression analyses were performed to derive customized weighting systems for the PAR index and DI, for all subjects and each Angle classification subgroup. Results: Professional judgment was consistent, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.995. The PAR index or DI can be reliably measured, with ICC = 0.959 and 0.990, respectively. The predictive accuracy of PAR index was greatly improved by the Chinese weighting process (from r = 0.431 to r = 0.788) with almost equal distribution in each Angle classification subgroup. The Chinese-weighted DI showed a higher predictive accuracy, at P = 0.01, compared with the PAR index (r = 0.851 versus r = 0.788). A better performance was found in the Class II group (r = 0.890) when compared to Class I (r = 0.736) and III (r = 0.785) groups. Conclusions: The Chinese-weighted PAR index and DI were capable of predicting 62 per cent and 73 per cent of total variance in the professional judgment of malocclusion severity in Chinese patients. Differential prediction across Angle classifications merits attention since different weighting formulas were found.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Liu, S., Oh, H., Chambers, D. W., Xu, T., & Baumrind, S. (2018). Interpreting weightings of the peer assessment rating index and the discrepancy index across contexts on Chinese patients. European Journal of Orthodontics, 40(2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx043

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free