Validity and Reliability of Dysphagia Outcome Severity Scale (DOSS) When Used to Rate Flexible Endoscopic Evaluations of Swallowing (FEES).

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Johanna Fransson, Sofia Thorén, Jenny Selg, Liza Bergström, Patricia Hägglund
{"title":"Validity and Reliability of Dysphagia Outcome Severity Scale (DOSS) When Used to Rate Flexible Endoscopic Evaluations of Swallowing (FEES).","authors":"Johanna Fransson, Sofia Thorén, Jenny Selg, Liza Bergström, Patricia Hägglund","doi":"10.1007/s00455-024-10732-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale is used both clinically and within dysphagia research, internationally. Although it was developed using videofluoroscopic swallowing studies, it is frequently used to rate Flexible Endoscopic Evaluations of Swallowing. The validity and reliability of DOSS-use with FEES, however, has not previously been evaluated. This study investigated the validity and rater reliability of clinicians using DOSS to rate FEES. Eleven Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) with varied dysphagia experience were recruited to review and DOSS-rate 17 soundless FEES (198 bolus swallows) recorded from 11 heterogenic dysphagic patients (2 cases with repeat FEES) and 4 healthy adults. The SLPs DOSS-ratings were compared against the initial comprehensive dysphagia evaluation (including patient diagnosis, interview, cranial nerve and complete FEES assessment) with Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) and DOSS outcome measures. The SLPs were blinded to patient details and comprehensive dysphagia examination. Re-randomised rating of FEES cases occurred two weeks later (intra rater reliability). Criterion validity for DOSS-ratings (compared against comprehensive dysphagia evaluation with FOIS and DOSS) were strong-very strong (r<sub>s </sub>= 0.858 and 0.936 respectively; p < 0.001). Inter rater reliability demonstrated high agreement (α = 0.891), also intra rater reliability demonstrated almost perfect agreement (Kw = 0.945). This study's results, with strong-very strong criterion validity and high rater reliability by SLPs, adds to the evidence for DOSS-use with FEES. Future validity research comparing DOSS with both FEES and VFSS simultaneously is recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":11508,"journal":{"name":"Dysphagia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","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/s00455-024-10732-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale is used both clinically and within dysphagia research, internationally. Although it was developed using videofluoroscopic swallowing studies, it is frequently used to rate Flexible Endoscopic Evaluations of Swallowing. The validity and reliability of DOSS-use with FEES, however, has not previously been evaluated. This study investigated the validity and rater reliability of clinicians using DOSS to rate FEES. Eleven Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) with varied dysphagia experience were recruited to review and DOSS-rate 17 soundless FEES (198 bolus swallows) recorded from 11 heterogenic dysphagic patients (2 cases with repeat FEES) and 4 healthy adults. The SLPs DOSS-ratings were compared against the initial comprehensive dysphagia evaluation (including patient diagnosis, interview, cranial nerve and complete FEES assessment) with Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) and DOSS outcome measures. The SLPs were blinded to patient details and comprehensive dysphagia examination. Re-randomised rating of FEES cases occurred two weeks later (intra rater reliability). Criterion validity for DOSS-ratings (compared against comprehensive dysphagia evaluation with FOIS and DOSS) were strong-very strong (r= 0.858 and 0.936 respectively; p < 0.001). Inter rater reliability demonstrated high agreement (α = 0.891), also intra rater reliability demonstrated almost perfect agreement (Kw = 0.945). This study's results, with strong-very strong criterion validity and high rater reliability by SLPs, adds to the evidence for DOSS-use with FEES. Future validity research comparing DOSS with both FEES and VFSS simultaneously is recommended.

Abstract Image

吞咽困难结果严重程度量表 (DOSS) 用于评价柔性内窥镜吞咽评估 (FEES) 的有效性和可靠性。
吞咽困难结果和严重程度量表在国际上用于临床和吞咽困难研究。尽管该量表是通过视频荧光屏吞咽研究开发的,但它经常被用于对灵活内窥镜吞咽评估进行评分。然而,DOSS 与 FEES 结合使用的有效性和可靠性此前尚未进行过评估。本研究调查了临床医生使用 DOSS 对 FEES 进行评分的有效性和评分者的可靠性。研究人员招募了 11 名具有不同吞咽困难经验的言语病理学家 (SLP),对 11 名异源性吞咽困难患者(2 例重复 FEES)和 4 名健康成人记录的 17 次无声 FEES(198 次栓剂吞咽)进行审查和 DOSS 评分。SLP的DOSS评分与最初的综合吞咽困难评估(包括患者诊断、访谈、颅神经和完整的FEES评估)、功能性口腔摄入量表(FOIS)和DOSS结果测量进行了比较。SLP对患者的详细情况和综合吞咽困难检查结果进行盲测。两周后对 FEES 病例进行再次随机评分(评分者内部可靠性)。DOSS 评分的标准效度(与使用 FOIS 和 DOSS 进行的综合吞咽困难评估进行比较)非常高(rs 分别为 0.858 和 0.936;p)。
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