Search

Background/Objectives : The Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI) is commonly used in oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) research as a self-report measure of functional health status and health-related quality of life. The DHI was developed and validated using classic test theory. The aim of this study was to use item response theory (Rasch analysis) to evaluate the psychometric properties of the DHI. Methods : Prospective, consecutive patient data were collected at dysphagia or otorhinolaryngology clinics. The sample included 256 adults (53.1% male; mean age 65.2) at risk of OD. The measure's response scale, person and item fit characteristics, differential item functioning, and dimensionality were evaluated. Results : The rating scale was ordered but showed a potential gap in the rating category labels for the overall measure. The overall person (0.91) and item (0.97) reliability was excellent. The overall measure reliably separated persons into at least three distinct groups (person separation index = 3.23) based on swallowing abilities, but the subscales showed inadequate separation. All infit mean squares were in the acceptable range except for the underfitting for item 22 (F). More misfitting was evident in the Z-Standard statistics. Differential item functioning results indicated good performance at an item level for the overall measure; however, contrary to expectation, an OD diagnosis presented only with marginal DIF. The dimensionality of the DHI showed two dimensions in contrast to the three dimensions suggested by the original authors. Conclusions : The DHI failed to reproduce the original three subscales. Caution is needed using the DHI subscales; only the DHI total score should be used. A redevelopment of the DHI is needed; however, given the complexities involved in addressing these issues, the development of a new measure that ensures good content validity may be preferred.

Visuoperceptual evaluation of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is a commonly used assessment in dysphagia or swallowing disorders. Currently, no international consensus exists regarding which visuoperceptual measures to use for the analysis of FEES recordings. Moreover, existing visuoperceptual FEES measures are limited by poor and incomplete psychometric data, identifying an urgent need for developing a visuoperceptual measure to interpret FEES recordings. Following the COSMIN group's (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) psychometric taxonomy and guidelines, this study aimed to establish the content validity of a new visuoperceptual FEES (V-FEES) measure in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Using the Delphi technique, international consensus was achieved among dysphagia experts across 21 countries, resulting in a new prototype measure for V-FEES, comprising 30 items, 8 function testing items (i.e., specific tasks performed by patients while observing and rating items), and 36 unique operationalisations (i.e., defining items into measurable factors that could be measured empirically using visuoperceptual observation). This study supports good content validity for V-FEES, including participants' feedback on the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the included items. Future studies will continue the instrument development process and determine the remaining psychometric properties using both the classic test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) models.

This systematic review on non-instrumental clinical assessment in adult oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) provides an overview of published measures with reported reliability and validity. In alignment with PRISMA, four databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched, resulting in a total of 16 measures and 32 psychometric studies included. The included measures assessed any aspect of swallowing, consisted of at least one specific subscale relating to swallowing, were developed by clinical observation, targeted adults, and were developed in English. The included psychometric studies focused on adults, reported on measures for OD-related conditions, described non-instrumental clinical assessments, reported on validity or reliability, and were published in English. Methodological quality was assessed using the standard quality assessment QualSyst. Most measures targeted only restricted subdomains within the conceptual framework of non-instrumental clinical assessments. Across the 16 measures, hypothesis testing and reliability were the most reported psychometrics, whilst structural validity and content validity were the least reported. Overall, data on the reliability and validity of the included measures proved incomplete and frequently did not meet current psychometric standards. Future research should focus on the development of comprehensive non-instrumental clinical assessments for adults with OD using contemporary psychometric research methods.

Introduction . Patient self-evaluation is an important aspect in the assessment of dysphagia and comprises both Functional Health Status (FHS) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QoL). As many measures combine both FHS and HR-QoL, disease-related functioning cannot be distinguished from disease-related quality of life as experienced by the patient. Moreover, current patient self-reported measures are limited by poor and incomplete data on psychometric properties. Objective . This study aimed to establish content validity for the development of two new self-reported measures on FHS and HR-QoL in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD), in line with the psychometric taxonomy and guidelines from the COSMIN group ( CO nsensus-based S tandards for the selection of health M easurement IN struments). Methods . Using the Delphi technique, international expert consensus was achieved; participants and patients with dysphagia evaluated relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of definitions of relevant constructs (i.e., dysphagia, FHS and HR-QoL) and potential items. Results . A total of 66 Delphi participants from 45 countries achieved consensus across two rounds. The Delphi study resulted in two prototype measures, the Functional health status measure of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (FOD) and the health-related Quality of life measure of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (QOD), consisting of 37 and 25 items, respectively. Minimal revisions were required based on feedback by patients. Conclusions . This study provides evidence of good content validity for both newly developed prototype measures FOD and QOD. Future studies will continue the process of refining the measures, and evaluate the remaining psychometric properties using both Classic Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) models., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Our systematic review and meta-analysis of pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is the first paper (Part I) [...].

Objective. To assess the effects of brain neurostimulation (i.e., repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS] and transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]) in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). Methods. Systematic literature searches were conducted in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed) to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. Using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2), the methodological quality of included studies was evaluated, after which meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Results. In total, 24 studies reporting on brain neurostimulation were included: 11 studies on rTMS, 9 studies on tDCS, and 4 studies on combined neurostimulation interventions. Overall, within-group meta-analysis and between-group analysis for rTMS identified significant large and small effects in favour of stimulation, respectively. For tDCS, overall within-group analysis and between-group analysis identified significant large and moderate effects in favour of stimulation, respectively. Conclusion. Both rTMS and tDCS show promising effects in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. However, comparisons between studies were challenging due to high heterogeneity in stimulation protocols and experimental parameters, potential moderators, and inconsistent methodological reporting. Generalisations of meta-analyses need to be interpreted with care. Future research should include large RCTs using standard protocols and reporting guidelines as achieved by international consensus.

Objective. To assess the effects of neurostimulation (i.e., neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES)) in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). Methods. Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomised controlled trials in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Results. In total, 42 studies reporting on peripheral neurostimulation were included: 30 studies on NMES, eight studies on PES, and four studies on combined neurostimulation interventions. When conducting meta analyses, significant, large and significant, moderate pre-post treatment effects were found for NMES (11 studies) and PES (five studies), respectively. Between-group analyses showed small effect sizes in favour of NMES, but no significant effects for PES. Conclusions. NMES may have more promising effects compared to PES. However, NMES studies showed high heterogeneity in protocols and experimental variables, the presence of potential moderators, and inconsistent reporting of methodology. Therefore, only conservative generalisations and interpretation of meta-analyses could be made. To facilitate comparisons of studies and determine intervention effects, there is a need for more randomised controlled trials with larger population sizes, and greater standardisation of protocols and guidelines for reporting.

The visuoperceptual measure for videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VMV) is a new measure for analysing the recordings from videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VFSS). This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the pilot version of the VMV using classical test theory (CTT) analysis, informed by the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Forty participants, diagnosed with oropharyngeal dysphagia by fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, were recruited. The VFSS and administration of bolus textures and volumes were conducted according to a standardised protocol. Recordings of the VFSS were rated by three blinded raters: a speech-language pathologist, a radiologist and a phoniatrician. Inter- and intra-rater reliability was assessed with a weighted kappa and resulted in 0.889 and 0.944 overall, respectively. Structural validity was determined using exploratory factor analyses, which found four and five factor solutions. Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha coefficients, which found all but one factor scoring within an acceptable range (>0.70 and <0.95). Hypothesis testing for construct validity found the expected correlations between the severity of dysphagia and the VMV's performance, and found no impact of gender on measure performance. These results suggest that the VMV has potential as a reliable and valid measure for VFSS. Further validation with a larger sample is required, and validation using an item response theory paradigm approach is recommended.

Objective: To determine the effects of behavioural interventions in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia., Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials in four different databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). The methodological quality of eligible articles was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2), after which meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model., Results: A total of 37 studies were included. Overall, a significant, large pre-post interventions effect size was found. To compare different types of interventions, all behavioural interventions and conventional dysphagia treatment comparison groups were categorised into compensatory, rehabilitative, and combined compensatory and rehabilitative interventions. Overall, significant treatment effects were identified favouring behavioural interventions. In particular, large effect sizes were found when comparing rehabilitative interventions with no dysphagia treatment, and combined interventions with compensatory conventional dysphagia treatment. When comparing selected interventions versus conventional dysphagia treatment, significant, large effect sizes were found in favour of Shaker exercise, chin tuck against resistance exercise, and expiratory muscle strength training., Conclusions: Behavioural interventions show promising effects in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. However, due to high heterogeneity between studies, generalisations of meta-analyses need to be interpreted with care.