Web version of the protocol of the orofacial myofunctional evaluation with scores: usability and learning.
Maria Carolina Gironde Ataide, Filipe Andrade Bernardi, Paulo Mazzoncini de Azevedo Marques and 1 others
PMID 37098940WHAT IT FOUND
Speech-language pathologists rated a new web-based orofacial myofunctional evaluation tool as highly usable and easy to learn.
Experienced clinicians took longer to adapt than novices, but overall satisfaction was high regardless of prior experience with the paper version.
Key findings
01Evaluators reported high satisfaction with the web-based system, achieving 90% full satisfaction in the final usability analysis.
02Participants demonstrated a learning effect, with task completion time significantly decreasing from the first to the fifth evaluation.
03There was no significant relationship between the evaluators' prior experience with the paper protocol and their usability judgments.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used a convenience sample of 12 evaluators in the final step, which is small and may not represent the broader population of clinicians. The evaluation was simulated using existing paper forms rather than live patient assessments, so real-world clinical dynamics were not tested. The study did not assess the validity or reliability of the web version compared to the paper version, only its usability. Participants were all female and had a mean age of 32.3 years in step 2, limiting generalizability across demographics. The authors note that mobile device use (tablets/smartphones) has screen-size limitations that were not fully resolved in this iteration.
Declared interests
The study was funded by Brazilian government agencies (CNPq, USP, CAPES). No commercial conflicts of interest were declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume this web tool is clinically equivalent to the paper OMES. The study tested usability and learning curves, not diagnostic accuracy or reliability. Furthermore, the results come from a small group of SLPs transferring existing data, not from live patient evaluations.