Reduced version of the MBGR protocol: validity based on content and the response processes.

Only 11 examiners and 11 patients took part; the authors themselves flag the small sample as limiting generalisability. All examiners had prior experience with the original MBGR protocol, so their ease of use may not reflect what a clinician without that background would experience. Patients were aged 19–44, while the original protocol is intended for use from age 6 onward; no children or older adults were included. Only content validity and response-process evidence were gathered. Construct validity, criterion validity, and diagnostic accuracy remain to be established. The 11 patients were all diagnosed with orofacial myofunctional disorder; there was no group without the disorder to check whether the reduced protocol correctly identifies normal function.

Funded by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior), a Brazilian government agency for postgraduate education. No industry sponsor, no company that sells the protocol, and no author conflicts of interest are declared.

Do not read the 0.87 content validity index and the 91% applicability rating as proof that the reduced protocol can replace the full MBGR for diagnosis. The study only tested whether experts agreed the items were relevant and whether the protocol could be applied; it did not test whether the reduced version catches the same disorders, produces the same diagnoses, or works in children. The authors themselves state that construct validity, criterion validity, and diagnostic accuracy still need to be established before the protocol is ready for routine diagnostic use.