Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Fonseca anamnestic index for temporomandibular disorders

Abstract

Background The Fonseca anamnestic index (FAI) offers a simple, low‐cost, patient‐reported method for screening temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Objectives This study described the development of the Chinese version of the FAI (FAI‐C) and examined its reliability and validity when compared to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). Methods The FAI‐C was created by translation and cross‐cultural adaptation of the English instrument following international guidelines. Psychometric evaluation of the FAI‐C was carried out on a sample of 613 patients with TMDs and 57 controls. Reliability of the FAI‐C was determined by means of internal consistency and test‐retest methods while validity was ascertained by criterion‐related validity. Criterion validity was examined via Cohen's kappa, sensitivity and specificity when compared with DC/TMD Axis I diagnoses. Results Cronbach's alpha value (internal consistency) for total FAI‐C score was 0.669, and intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC) value (test‐retest reliability) was 0.823. For criterion validity, kappa coefficient value was 0.633 while sensitivity and specificity was 95.9% and 71.9%, respectively. Conclusion The Chinese version of the FAI demonstrated acceptable reliability and good validity. The FAI‐C could thus be used as an instrument for screening TMDs in Chinese literate populations.

Transcultural Adaptation and Validation of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index in a Spanish Population with Temporomandibular Disorders

“…To the best of our knowledge, this is the most complete clinimetric study of any version of the FAI. The FAI test-retest reliability had been previously analyzed for the Chinese version in a study from Zhang et al [ 31 ], but only in terms of the total score, which showed an ICC = 0.823, which is less than the excellent value of the ICC (0.937) that was found in the Spanish version. Additionally, we studied the reliability of each item using the nonparametric statistic corresponding to the ICC, the weighted Kappa.…”

“…Another original contribution of our study is the measurement of concurrent validity with measures of quality of life, pain and factors related to TMDs. In the Chinese version, Zhang et al [ 31 ] performed a very original calculation using an FAI cut-off value > 15 points to determine the agreement with the diagnosis from the DC/TMD axis, arriving at a good Kappa value (0.633).…”

Transcultural Adaptation and Validation of the Fonseca Anamnestic Index in a Spanish Population with Temporomandibular Disorders.

“…In our study were obtained values of sensitivity and speci city of 83.19% and 78.33%, respectively. However, the validation of the Chinese version shows a higher ability to detect true positives (sensitivity of 95.9%) but a poorer ability to differentiate true negatives (speci city = 71.9%) [31] than the Spanish version.…”

“…To the best of our knowledge, this is the most complete clinimetric study of any version of the FAI. The FAI test-retest reliability had been previously analyzed for the Chinese version in a study from Zhang et al [31], but only in terms of the total score, which showed an ICC = 0.823, which is less than the excellent value of the ICC (0.938) that was found in the Spanish version. Additionally, we studied the reliability of each item using the nonparametric statistic corresponding to the ICC, the weighted Kappa.…”

“…This result is better than that reported by Campos et al (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.745) [32], which can also be classi ed as good and, in any case, indicates that there was no redundancy between the items. However, the Chinese version obtained poor internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.669) [31].…”