Publications
2017
Liu, Siqi; Oh, Heesoo; Chambers, David W.; Xu, Tianmin; Baumrind, Sheldon
Interpreting weightings of the peer assessment rating index and the discrepancy index across contexts on Chinese patients Journal Article
In: European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 1-7, 2017, ISBN: 0141-5387.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Chinese, Discrepency Index, Peer Assessment Rating Index
@article{Liu2017b,
title = {Interpreting weightings of the peer assessment rating index and the discrepancy index across contexts on Chinese patients},
author = {Siqi Liu and Heesoo Oh and David W. Chambers and Tianmin Xu and Sheldon Baumrind},
url = {http://162.214.24.32/~crilorg/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Interpreting-weightings-of-the-PAR-and-ABO-DI_EJO-2017.pdf},
doi = {10.1093/ejo/cjx043},
isbn = {0141-5387},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-04-01},
journal = {European Journal of Orthodontics},
volume = {40},
number = {2},
pages = {1-7},
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) of0.995. 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 and73 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.},
keywords = {Chinese, Discrepency Index, Peer Assessment Rating Index},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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) of0.995. 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 and73 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.
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) of0.995. 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 and73 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.
Liu, Siqi; Oh, Heesoo; Chambers, David W.; Xu, Tianmin; Baumrind, Sheldon
Interpreting weightings of the peer assessment rating index and the discrepancy index across contexts on Chinese patients Journal Article
In: European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 1-7, 2017, ISBN: 0141-5387.
@article{Liu2017b,
title = {Interpreting weightings of the peer assessment rating index and the discrepancy index across contexts on Chinese patients},
author = {Siqi Liu and Heesoo Oh and David W. Chambers and Tianmin Xu and Sheldon Baumrind},
url = {http://162.214.24.32/~crilorg/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Interpreting-weightings-of-the-PAR-and-ABO-DI_EJO-2017.pdf},
doi = {10.1093/ejo/cjx043},
isbn = {0141-5387},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-04-01},
journal = {European Journal of Orthodontics},
volume = {40},
number = {2},
pages = {1-7},
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) of0.995. 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 and73 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.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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) of0.995. 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 and73 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.
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) of0.995. 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 and73 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.
2017 |
Liu, Siqi; Oh, Heesoo; Chambers, David W.; Xu, Tianmin; Baumrind, Sheldon: Interpreting weightings of the peer assessment rating index and the discrepancy index across contexts on Chinese patients. In: European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 1-7, 2017, ISBN: 0141-5387. (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Chinese, Discrepency Index, Peer Assessment Rating Index)@article{Liu2017b,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) of0.995. 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 and73 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. |