Analysis of the reliability of the Italian version of the Oral Behaviours Checklist and the relationship between oral behaviours and trait anxiety in healthy individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background The Oral Behaviours Checklist (OBC) is a valid 21‐item instrument quantifying the self‐reported frequency of oral behaviours. An Italian version (OBC‐It) has been released recently. Anxiety and oral behaviours are known to be associated in individuals with oro‐facial pain due to temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, information about this relationship in pain‐free individuals is still limited. Objectives The aim of this study was to test the reliability of the OBC‐It and its reduced version (OBC‐It 6), focusing on tooth clenching‐related wake‐time oral behaviours, and the effect of patient instructions on reliability. A second aim was to test the association between trait anxiety and oral behaviours in pain‐free individuals. Methods Two hundred and eighty‐two TMD‐free students, divided into 2 groups (Group A, n = 139, mean age ± SD = 22.6 ± 5.4 years; Group B, n = 143, 23.7 ± 4.2 years), filled in the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory and the OBC‐It. Group B received instructions about the OBC‐It, while Group A did not. After 2 weeks, both groups filled in the OBC‐It again. However, Group B was further divided into 2 subgroups, B 1 and B 2 . The first received the same instructions again, while B 2 did not. Results The test‐retest reliability of the OBC‐It (A: ICC = .87; B 1 : ICC = .94; B 2 : ICC = .95) and OBC‐It 6 (A: ICC = .85; B 1 : ICC = .89; B 2 : ICC = .93) was excellent in all groups. Trait anxiety was weakly associated with OBC‐It only in women ( R 2 = .043, P = .021). Conclusions The OBC‐It is a reliable tool but further subjects’ instructions might be needed. Trait anxiety has a limited effect on oral behaviours in TMD‐free subjects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".