↓ Skip to main content

Validity of the Oral Behaviours Checklist: correlations between OBC scores and intensity of facial pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of the Oral Behaviours Checklist: correlations between OBC scores and intensity of facial pain
Published in
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, January 2013
DOI 10.1111/joor.12114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meulen, M. J., Lobbezoo, F., Aartman, I. H. A., Naeije, M.

Abstract

The first purpose of this study was to translate the Oral Behaviours Checklist (OBC) into Dutch and to examine its psychometric properties. The second purpose was to examine the correlations between scores on the OBC and facial pain, while controlling for the possible confounding effects of psychosocial factors, such as stress, depression, somatisation and anxiety. The OBC was translated, following the international RDC/TMD consortium guidelines. Its psychometric properties were examined by assessing the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity [correlations between the OBC and the previously developed Oral Parafunctions Questionnaire (OPQ)]. Participants were 155 patients with TMD (77% female; mean age and s.d. = 43.6 and 14.4 years). The translation of the OBC into Dutch proceeded satisfactorily. The psychometric properties of the Dutch OBC were good; test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.86, P < 0.001). Concurrent validity was good: the correlation between the OBC and OPQ was high (r = 0.757, P < 0.001), while the correlations between individual items ranged from 0.389 to 0.892 (P < 0.001). Similar to previous Dutch studies using the OPQ, no significant correlation was found between oral parafunctions and facial pain (r = 0.069, P = 0.892). No significant correlations could be found between oral parafunctional behaviours and facial pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 2 5%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 36%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 64%
Unspecified 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Computer Science 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 4 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2013.
All research outputs
#4,653,151
of 6,295,457 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
#154
of 251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,748
of 141,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,295,457 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 251 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 141,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.