Dataset Information

A prospective study for evaluation of structural and clinical validity of the Eating Assessment Tool.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The Eating Assessment Tool is a self-rating questionnaire developed to assess symptom severity and treatment efficacy in swallowing disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the structural validity of the Eating Assessment Tool and whether individual item scores differed between dysphagia secondary to neurological and structural/esophageal disorders, respectively. METHODS:This is a prospective cross-sectional questionnaire study. In total, 200 community-dwelling adults with suspected dysphagia referred for fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, completed the S-EAT-10. Patients' medical charts were reviewed in order to establish the type of dysphagia. Principal axis factoring was conducted to examine structural validity, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to study differences in the S-EAT-10 score patterns between different types of dysphagia. RESULTS:One single factor explained 54% of the total variance in EAT-10 item scores. All ten items loaded substantially or strongly on this factor, supporting the single-factor solution (Cronbach's alpha?=?0.90). Structural/esophageal dysphagia was associated with higher scores on six items and with a higher total EAT-10 score. CONCLUSIONS:The EAT-10 yields a unidimensional index of symptom severity in patients with dysphagia. Individual item scores reflect typical symptoms in neurogenic and structural/esophageal dysphagia, supporting its clinical relevance.

SUBMITTER: Moller R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7405447 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A prospective study for evaluation of structural and clinical validity of the Eating Assessment Tool.

Möller Riitta R Safa Stephanie S Östberg Per P

BMC geriatrics 20200805 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Eating Assessment Tool is a self-rating questionnaire developed to assess symptom severity and treatment efficacy in swallowing disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the structural validity of the Eating Assessment Tool and whether individual item scores differed between dysphagia secondary to neurological and structural/esophageal disorders, respectively.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a prospective cross-sectional questionnaire study. In total, 200 community-dwelli ...[more]

PMID: 32758137

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mentorship plays an essential role in enhancing the success of junior faculty. Previous evaluation tools focused on specific types of mentors or mentees. The main objective was to develop and provide validity evidence for a Mentor Evaluation Tool (MET) to assess the effectiveness of one-on-one mentoring for faculty in the academic health sciences. METHODS:Evidence was collected for the validity domains of content, internal structure and relationship to other variables. The 13 item MET was tested for internal structure evidence with 185 junior faculty from Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. Finally, the MET was studied for additional validity evidence by prospectively enrolling mentees of three different groups of faculty (faculty nominated for, or winners of, a lifetime achievement in mentoring award; faculty graduates of a mentor training program; and faculty mentors not in either of the other two groups) at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and asking them to rate their mentors using the MET. Mentors and mentees were clinicians, educators and/or researchers. RESULTS:The 13 MET items mapped well to the five mentoring domains and six competencies described in the literature. The standardized Cronbach's coefficient alpha was 0.96. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a single factor (CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.05). The three mentor groups did not differ in the single overall assessment item (P = 0.054) or mean MET score (P = 0.288), before or after adjusting for years of mentoring. The mentorship score means were relatively high for all three groups. CONCLUSIONS:The Mentor Evaluation Tool demonstrates evidence of validity for research, clinical, educational or career mentors in academic health science careers. However, MET did not distinguish individuals nominated as outstanding mentors from other mentors. MET validity evidence can be studied further with mentor-mentee pairs and to follow prospectively the rating of mentors before and after a mentorship training program.

Project description:PURPOSE:Develop and establish the content validity of the Behavioral Assessment Screening Tool (BAST?), a self-reported measure of behavioral and emotional symptoms after traumatic brain injury. METHODS:This was an assessment development study, including two focus groups of individuals with traumatic brain injury (n?=?11) and their family members (n?=?10) and an expert panel evaluation of content validity by experts in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation (n?=?7). We developed and assessed the Content Validity Index of the BAST?. RESULTS:The BAST? initial items (n?=?77) corresponded with an established conceptual model of behavioral dysregulation after traumatic brain injury. After expert panel evaluation and focus group feedback, the final BAST? included 66 items (60 primary, 6 branching logic) rated on a three-level ordinal scale (Never, Sometimes, Always) with reference to the past two weeks, and an Environmental Context checklist including recent major life events (n?=?23) and four open-ended questions about environmental factors. The BAST? had a high Content Validity Index of 89.3%. CONCLUSION:The BAST? is a theoretically grounded, multidimensional self-reported assessment of behavioral dysregulation after traumatic brain injury, with good content validity. Future translation into mobile health modalities could improve effectiveness and efficiency of long-term symptom monitoring post-traumatic brain injury. Future work will establish and validate the factor structure, internal consistency reliabilities and other validities of the BAST. Implications for Rehabilitation Behavioral problems after traumatic brain injury is one of the strongest contributing factors to poor mood and community integration outcomes after injury. Behavior is complex and multidimensional, making it a challenge to measure and to monitor long term. The Behavioral Assessment Screening Tool (BAST) is a patient-oriented outcome assessment developed in collaboration with individuals with traumatic brain injury, their care partners, and experts in the field of traumatic brain injury rehabilitation to be relevant and accessible for adults with traumatic brain injuries. The BAST is a long-term monitoring and screening tool for community-dwelling adults with traumatic brain injuries, to improve identification and management of behavioral and emotional sequelae.

Dataset Information

A prospective study for evaluation of structural and clinical validity of the Eating Assessment Tool.

Publications

A prospective study for evaluation of structural and clinical validity of the Eating Assessment Tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets