Reduced version of the MBGR protocol: validity based on content and the response processes.
Asenate Soares de Matos Pereira, Herick Santos Assis, Paola Pereira Leite and 2 others
A shortened orofacial assessment protocol received initial validity support from 11 speech-language pathologists.
It takes about 40 minutes and examiners rated it as usable in daily practice. It is not yet a proven replacement for the full protocol.
Key findings
1The overall content validity index for the reduced protocol was 0.87, above the 0.80 threshold the authors set as the minimum for acceptable item adequacy.
2Applying the reduced protocol took a median of 40 minutes (range 34 to 64 minutes, mean 42.45 minutes) across the 11 examiner–patient pairs.
391% of examiners agreed the reduced version is applicable in clinical practice, while 55% disagreed that the original version is applicable.
to read the rest of this summary — three full summaries a month, no card.
Already have an account?
What it does not show
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.
Declared interests
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.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →