4.6 Article

Validity and Reliability of the Helkimo Clinical Dysfunction Index for the Diagnosis of Temporomandibular Disorders

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030472

Keywords

temporomandibular disorder; validity and reliability; questionnaires and survey validity study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Helkimo Clinical Dysfunction Index (HCDI) is a valid and reliable assessment tool for TMD patients, showing high inter-rater concordance and correlation with other TMD assessment tests. However, it has only a moderate correlation with dizziness and poorer correlations with neck pain, headache, and overall quality of life.
The Helkimo Clinical Dysfunction Index (HCDI) is a simple and quick test used to evaluate subjects affected by temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), and its psychometric properties have not been tested. The test evaluates movement, joint function, pain and musculature, providing a quick general overview that could be very useful at different levels of care. For this reason, the aim of this study was to validate the use of the HCDI in a sample of patients with TMD. Methods: The sample consisted of 107 subjects, 60 TMD patients and 47 healthy controls. The study evaluated concurrent validity, inter-rater concordance and predictive values. Results: The HCDI showed moderate to substantial inter-rater concordance among the items and excellent concordance for the total scores. The correlation with other TMD assessment tests was high, the correlation with dizziness was moderate and the correlation with neck pain, headache and overall quality of life was poor. The prediction of TMD showed a sensitivity of 86.67%, a specificity of 68.09% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.841. Conclusions: The HCDI is a valid and reliable assessment instrument; its clinimetric properties are adequate, and it has a good ability to discriminate between TMD-affected and TMD-unaffected subjects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available