Confidence, Accuracy, and Reliability of Penetration-Aspiration Scale Ratings on Flexible Endoscopic Evaluations of Swallowing by Speech Pathologists.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Dysphagia Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-19 DOI:10.1007/s00455-023-10635-5
Merertu Kitila, James C Borders, Gintas P Krisciunas, Edel McNally, Jessica M Pisegna
{"title":"Confidence, Accuracy, and Reliability of Penetration-Aspiration Scale Ratings on Flexible Endoscopic Evaluations of Swallowing by Speech Pathologists.","authors":"Merertu Kitila, James C Borders, Gintas P Krisciunas, Edel McNally, Jessica M Pisegna","doi":"10.1007/s00455-023-10635-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated rater confidence when rating airway invasion with the penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) on flexible endoscopic evaluations of swallowing (FEES), raters' accuracy against a referent-standard, inter-rater reliability, and potential associations between clinician confidence, experience, and accuracy. Thirty-one clinicians who use FEES in their daily practice were asked to judge airway invasion with the PAS and to rate their confidence that their score was correct (0-100) for 40 video clips, five in each of the 8 PAS categories. We found that raters were most confident in rating PAS 1, 7, and 8. The average confidence score across all videos was 76/100. Confidence did not have a significant relationship with accuracy against the referent-standard. Accuracy was highest for PAS 1 (92%), followed by PAS 8 (80%), PAS 7 (77%), and PAS 4 (72%). Accuracy was below 60% for PAS 2, 3, 5, and 6, the lowest being for PAS 3 (49%). Mean accuracy for all ratings, compared to referent-standard ratings, was highest for the intermediate group (71%), followed by expert (68%) and novice (65%). In general, we found that certain PAS scores tend to be rated more accurately, and that participating SLPs had varied confidence in PAS ratings on FEES. Potential reasons for these findings as well as suggested next steps are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":11508,"journal":{"name":"Dysphagia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dysphagia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-023-10635-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigated rater confidence when rating airway invasion with the penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) on flexible endoscopic evaluations of swallowing (FEES), raters' accuracy against a referent-standard, inter-rater reliability, and potential associations between clinician confidence, experience, and accuracy. Thirty-one clinicians who use FEES in their daily practice were asked to judge airway invasion with the PAS and to rate their confidence that their score was correct (0-100) for 40 video clips, five in each of the 8 PAS categories. We found that raters were most confident in rating PAS 1, 7, and 8. The average confidence score across all videos was 76/100. Confidence did not have a significant relationship with accuracy against the referent-standard. Accuracy was highest for PAS 1 (92%), followed by PAS 8 (80%), PAS 7 (77%), and PAS 4 (72%). Accuracy was below 60% for PAS 2, 3, 5, and 6, the lowest being for PAS 3 (49%). Mean accuracy for all ratings, compared to referent-standard ratings, was highest for the intermediate group (71%), followed by expert (68%) and novice (65%). In general, we found that certain PAS scores tend to be rated more accurately, and that participating SLPs had varied confidence in PAS ratings on FEES. Potential reasons for these findings as well as suggested next steps are discussed.

Abstract Image

语言病理学家在灵活内窥镜吞咽评估中渗透-吸入量表评分的置信度、准确性和可靠性。
本研究调查了在柔性内镜吞咽评估(FEES)中使用穿透-吸入量表(PAS)评定气道侵犯时的评分者置信度,评分者相对于参考标准的准确性,评分者间的可靠性,以及临床医生信心、经验和准确性之间的潜在关联。31名在日常实践中使用FEES的临床医生被要求用PAS来判断气道侵犯,并对40个视频片段(8个PAS类别中每个类别5个)的得分进行信心评分(0-100)。我们发现评分者对PAS 1、7和8的评分最有信心。所有视频的平均信心得分为76/100。信心与对照标准的准确度无显著关系。PAS 1的准确率最高(92%),其次是PAS 8 (80%), PAS 7(77%)和PAS 4(72%)。PAS 2、3、5和6的准确率低于60%,PAS 3的准确率最低(49%)。与参考标准评分相比,所有评分的平均准确率在中间组最高(71%),其次是专家(68%)和新手(65%)。总的来说,我们发现某些PAS分数往往被更准确地评定,并且参与的slp对PAS对费用的评分有不同的信心。讨论了这些发现的潜在原因以及建议的下一步措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dysphagia
Dysphagia 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Dysphagia aims to serve as a voice for the benefit of the patient. The journal is devoted exclusively to swallowing and its disorders. The purpose of the journal is to provide a source of information to the flourishing dysphagia community. Over the past years, the field of dysphagia has grown rapidly, and the community of dysphagia researchers have galvanized with ambition to represent dysphagia patients. In addition to covering a myriad of disciplines in medicine and speech pathology, the following topics are also covered, but are not limited to: bio-engineering, deglutition, esophageal motility, immunology, and neuro-gastroenterology. The journal aims to foster a growing need for further dysphagia investigation, to disseminate knowledge through research, and to stimulate communication among interested professionals. The journal publishes original papers, technical and instrumental notes, letters to the editor, and review articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信