ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2026
Risk Classification Instrument for Orofacial Myofunctional Disorders - ICR/DMO: Reliability (Part III).
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the reliability of the Risk Classification Instrument for Orofacial Myofunctional Disorders (ICR/DMO). METHODOLOGY: This reliability study was conducted as part of the broader validation process of the ICR/DMO. Ninety caregivers of infants and preschoolers participated and were allocated into three age groups: G1=30 infants aged 1-5 months; G2=30 infants aged 6-23 months; and G3=30 preschoolers aged 24-71 months. Participants were recruited from two public daycare centers and a university pediatric clinic. The ICR/DMO was administered in person by a single speech-language pathologist (A1) by means of individual interviews with the caregivers, with responses registered in real time and audio-recorded. The audio recordings were analyzed by three additional raters (A2a, A2b, and A2c). After calibration, each rater received 30 audio recordings according to the following group allocation: A2a (G1), A2b (G2), and A2c (G3). Inter-rater agreement (100% of the sample; n=90) and intra-rater reproducibility (20% of the sample; n=18) were assessed using Kendall's tau (Kendall's τ). The following interpretation was adopted: weak (<0.4), moderate (0.4-0.7), and strong (>0.7), with p<0.05.
resultsInter- and intra-rater agreement were observed both for the total scores and for individual instrument items. For the total scores, inter-rater agreement was moderate in G1 (τ=0.576; p=0.001); strong in G2 (τ=0.775; p<0.001), and moderate in G3 (τ=0.583; p<0.001). In all groups, the retest showed strong agreement (G1: τ=0.786; p=0.032; G2: τ=0.881; p=0.002; G3: τ=0.926; p=0.014). For the individual items, both inter-rater and intra-rater agreement showed satisfactory rates of observed agreement.
conclusionThe ICR/DMO demonstrated evidence of reliability across the three age groups, with inter-rater agreement ranging from moderate to good and intra-rater agreement ranging from good to excellent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.