| Abstrakt: |
The process of examiner calibration is an essential step in all epidemiological research, as it aims to ensure uniform interpretation, understanding, and application of the instrument to be used. This ensures that the data collected will be valid and reliable. This study aimed to determine the differences in concordance in dental caries calibration across three dental specialties. The population consisted of 45 dentists, divided into three groups: 15 general dentists working in the public sector, 15 dentists specializing in Dental Public Health, and 15 dentists specializing in Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry. The calibration process was carried out in three stages: theory, calibration using photographs, and calibration on natural teeth, performed by the gold standard. In the first validity process, a statistical difference was only found between the Kappa values of the inter-examiner calibration process using photographs. For the evaluation of teeth, in the second validity process, 33.33% (n = 15) of the participants achieved "almost perfect agreement." Finally, only 75.56% (n = 34) of the examiners were considered for the reliability report; of this group, 52.94% (n = 18) were in "almost perfect agreement," and 35.29% (n = 12) were in "substantial agreement." The validity and reliability of the dental caries experience calibration process did not present significant statistical differences between general dentists in the public sector, dentists specializing in Dental Public Health, and dentists specializing in Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
