TY - JOUR
T1 - Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability and Validation of Orofacial Cleft Classification in the Cleft Collective Cohort Study
AU - The Cleft Multidisciplinary Collaborative
AU - Davies, Amy
AU - Sainsbury, David
AU - Medina, Jibby
AU - Russell, Craig
AU - Humphries, Kerry
AU - Fitzsimons, Kate J.
AU - Sandy, Jonathan
AU - Deacon, Scott
AU - Wren, Yvonne
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2026, American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
PY - 2026/5/10
Y1 - 2026/5/10
N2 - Objective: Assess the level of agreement for classification of orofacial clefts within and between different raters and validate classifications. Design: Validation study. Setting: National longitudinal prospective cohort, United Kingdom. Participants: Children born with orofacial cleft (n=4211), recruited to the Cleft Collective between 2013 and 2024. Main outcome measures: Four cleft classifications of orofacial clefts were explored. Classification one comprised cleft lip, cleft palate, and cleft lip and palate. Classification two added laterality, classification three added sidedness and classification four added completeness using LAHSAL. Data on orofacial cleft classification were collected through seven different sources. Results: At least one report of cleft classification was available for 4052 Cleft Collective study children. When assessing intra-rater agreement mothers had the highest level of agreement for the simplest form of cleft classification with a Krippendorf's Alpha of 0.987. When recording LAHSAL for the same child, surgeons reported the same classification for 71% of children (Krippendorf's Alpha = 0.672). When assessing inter-rater agreement across different sources, the simplest cleft classification resulted in the highest level of agreement (Krippendorf's Alpha = 0.957) and the least agreement when using LAHSAL (Krippendorf's Alpha = 0.538). Conclusion: Our study found that the more complex a cleft classification becomes the less agreement there is between sources. Differences across sources became most apparent when reporting the sidedness or completeness of a cleft. Validation of cleft classification is important for both clinical care and research. Although LAHSAL is advocated for use both clinically and in research our data show that rigorous training is essential.
AB - Objective: Assess the level of agreement for classification of orofacial clefts within and between different raters and validate classifications. Design: Validation study. Setting: National longitudinal prospective cohort, United Kingdom. Participants: Children born with orofacial cleft (n=4211), recruited to the Cleft Collective between 2013 and 2024. Main outcome measures: Four cleft classifications of orofacial clefts were explored. Classification one comprised cleft lip, cleft palate, and cleft lip and palate. Classification two added laterality, classification three added sidedness and classification four added completeness using LAHSAL. Data on orofacial cleft classification were collected through seven different sources. Results: At least one report of cleft classification was available for 4052 Cleft Collective study children. When assessing intra-rater agreement mothers had the highest level of agreement for the simplest form of cleft classification with a Krippendorf's Alpha of 0.987. When recording LAHSAL for the same child, surgeons reported the same classification for 71% of children (Krippendorf's Alpha = 0.672). When assessing inter-rater agreement across different sources, the simplest cleft classification resulted in the highest level of agreement (Krippendorf's Alpha = 0.957) and the least agreement when using LAHSAL (Krippendorf's Alpha = 0.538). Conclusion: Our study found that the more complex a cleft classification becomes the less agreement there is between sources. Differences across sources became most apparent when reporting the sidedness or completeness of a cleft. Validation of cleft classification is important for both clinical care and research. Although LAHSAL is advocated for use both clinically and in research our data show that rigorous training is essential.
KW - cleft classification
KW - cleft lip
KW - cleft lip and palate
KW - Cleft Multidisciplinary Collaborative
KW - cleft palate
KW - CRANE
KW - The Cleft Collective
KW - UK cleft care
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105038261037
U2 - 10.1177/10556656261443367
DO - 10.1177/10556656261443367
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105038261037
SN - 1055-6656
JO - Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
JF - Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
ER -