Self-Report of Waking-State Oral Parafunctional Behaviors in the Natural Environment

Aims: To determine if retrospective self-report of oral parafunctional behaviors potentially relevant to pain conditions is valid, by comparing oral parafunctional behaviors via a self-report instrument (Oral Behaviors Checklist [OBC]) with in-field reports of oral parafunction. Methods: Individuals with a range of oral parafunctional behaviors, as identified by the OBC, were recruited, and 22 completed the field study. Using the Ecological Momentary Assessment paradigm, each subject was randomly prompted about eight times per day, for a target of 7 days, via portable handheld computer to report current behaviors among 11 queried items. Before and after the field study, a paper version of the OBC was administered. Separately, 74 individuals participated in a test-retest study of the paper OBC. Analyses included regression, correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and area under the receiving operating curve (AUC). Results: Pre- and postfield study administration of the OBC exhibited substantial reliability (ICC = 0.65), indicating no reactivity during the intervening in-field data collection. Reliability across in-field days was low, indicating high variability in which behavior occurred on which day. Nonobservable behaviors were reported more frequently than observable behaviors. Self-report via OBC was linear with in-field data collection methods (R2 values ranged from 0.1 to 0.7; most values were within 0.3 to 0.4). The predictive value of the self-report total score was AUC (0.88) relative to the in-field study score. Separate test-retest reliability of the OBC was almost perfect (ICC = 0.88). Conclusions: The OBC is a reliable and valid way to predict behaviors in the natural environment and will be useful for further pain research.

behavior; pain; parafunction; self-report; TMD

1. Prkachin KM, Schultz IZ, Hughes E. Pain behavior and the development of pain-related disability: The importance of guarding. Clin J Pain 2007;23:270–277.

2. Ohrbach R, Markiewicz MR, McCall WD Jr. Waking-state oral parafunctional behaviors: Specificity and validity as assessed by electromyography. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:438–444.

3. Ohrbach R, Blasberg B, Greenberg MS. Temporomandibular disorders. In: Glick M (ed). Burket’s Oral Medicine, ed 12. Shelton, CT: PMPH-USA, 2015:263–308.

4. Glaros AG. EMG Biofeedback as an Experimental Tool for Studying Pain. Biofeedback 2007;50–53.

5. Ohrbach R. Assessment and further development of RDC/TMD Axis II biobehavioural instruments: A research pro-gramme progress report. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:784–798.

6. Ohrbach R, Turner JA, Sherman JJ, et al. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. IV: Evaluation of psychometric properties of the Axis II measures. J Orofac Pain 2010;24:48–62.

7. Schiffman EL, Truelove EL, Ohrbach R, et al. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. I: Overviewand methodology for assessment of validity. J Orofac Pain 2010;24:7–24.

8. Markiewicz MR, Ohrbach R, McCall WD Jr. Oral behaviors checklist: Reliability of performance in targeted waking-state behaviors. J Orofac Pain 2006;20:306–316.

9. Ohrbach R, Fillingim RB, Mulkey F, et al. Clinical findings and pain symptoms as potential risk factors for chronic TMD: Descriptive data and empirically identified domains from the OPPERA case-control study. J Pain 2011;12:T27–T45.

10. Michelotti A, Cioffi I, Festa P, Scala G, Farella M. Oral parafunctions as risk factors for diagnostic TMD subgroups. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:157–162.

11. Ohrbach R, Bair E, Fillingim RB, et al. Clinical orofacial characteristics associated with risk of first-onset TMD: The OPPERA prospective cohort study. J Pain 2013;14:T33–T50.

12. Shiffman S. Real-time self-report of momentary states in the natural environment: Computerized ecological momentary assessment. In: Stone AA, Turkkan JS, Bachrach CA, Jobe JB, Kurtzman HS, Cain VS (eds). The Science of Self-Report: Implications for Research and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000:277–296.

13. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA, 2014.

14. Goldberg D, Williams P. A User’s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson, 1988.

15. Barrett LF, Barrett DJ. ESP: The Experience Sampling Program. http://www.experience-sampling.org/. Accessed 1 June, 2015.

16. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420–428.

17. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 2005;19:231–240.

18. Grafton KV, Foster NE, Wright CC. Test-retest reliability of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire: Assessment of intraclass correlation coefficients and limits of agreement in patients with osteoarthritis. Clin J Pain 2005;21:73–82.

19. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.

20. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2008;4:1–32.

21. Ghiselli EE, Campbell JP, Zedeck S. Measurement Theory for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: WH Freeman, 1981.

22. Anastasi A. Psychological Testing. New York: Macmillan, 1988.

23. Dworkin SF, Ohrbach R. Biobehavioral assessment and treatment of temporomandibular disorders. In: Bays RA, Quinn PD (eds). Temporomandibular Disorders. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2000:389-409.

24. van der Meulen MJ, Lobbezoo F, Aartman IH, Naeije M. Validity of the Oral Behaviours Checklist: Correlations between OBC scores and intensity of facial pain. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41:115–121.

25. Aaron LA, Turner JA, Mancl L, Brister H, Sawchuk CN. Electronic diary assessment of pain-related variables: Is reactivity a problem? J Pain 2005;6:107–115.

26. Glaros AG, Hanson AH, Ryen CC. Headache and oral parafunctional behaviors. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 2014;39:59–66.

27. Chen CY, Palla S, Erni S, Sieber M, Gallo LM. Nonfunctional tooth contact in healthy controls and patients with myogenous facial pain. J Orofac Pain 2007;21:185–193.

28. Glaros AG, Williams K, Lausten L. The role of parafunctions, emotions and stress in predicting facial pain. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:451–458.

29. Glaros AG, Williams K, Lausten L, Friesen LR. Tooth contact in patients with temporomandibular disorders. Cranio 2005; 23:188–193.

30. Glaros AG. Temporomandibular disorders and facial pain: A psychophysiological perspective. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 2008;33:161–171.

31. Steinberg L. Context and serial-order effects in personality measurement: Limits on the generality of measuring changes the measure. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994;66:341–349.

32. Scollon CN, Kim-Prieto C, Diener E. Experience sampling: Promises and pitfalls, strengths and weaknesses. J Happiness Studies 2003;4:5–34.

33. Hufford MR, Shields AL, Shiffman S, Paty J, Balabanis M. Reactivity to ecological momentary assessment: An example usingundergraduate problem drinkers. Psychol Addict Behav 2002;16:205–211.

34. Conner TS, Tennen H, Fleeson W, Barrett LF. Experience Sampling Methods: A modern idiographic approach to personalityresearch. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 2009;3: 292–313.

35. Johnson EI, Grondin O, Barrault M, et al. Computerized ambulatory monitoring in psychiatry: A multi-site collaborative study of acceptability, compliance, and reactivity. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2009;18:48–57.

36. Hamilton JC, Shuminsky TR. Self-awareness mediates the relationship between serial position and item reliability. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990;59:1301–1307.

37. Knowles ES, Byers B. Reliability shifts in measurement reactivity: Driven by content engagement or self-engagement? J Pers Soc Psychol 1996;70:1080–1090.

38. Stone AA, Broderick JE, Shiffman SS, Schwartz JE. Understanding recall of weekly pain from a momentary assessment perspective: Absolute agreement, between- and within-person consistency, and judged change in weekly pain. Pain 2004;107:61–69.

39. van Selms MK, Lobbezoo F, Wicks DJ, Hamburger HL, Naeije M. Craniomandibular pain, oral parafunctions, and psychological stress in a longitudinal case study. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31:738–745.

40. Helkimo M. Studies on function and dysfunction of the masticatory system. IV. Age and sex distribution of symptoms of dysfunction of the masticatory system in Lapps in the north of Finland. Acta Odontol Scand 1974;32:255–267.

41. Dworkin SF, LeResche L, DeRouen T, Von Korff M. Assessing clinical signs of temporomandibular disorders: Reliability of clinical examiners. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:574–579.

42. Glaros AG, Williams K. Tooth contact versus clenching: Oral parafunctions and facial pain. J Orofac Pain 2012;26:176–180.