Dataset Information

[The German Sydney Swallow Questionnaire : Reliability and validity in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia].

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Sydney Swallow Questionnaire (SSQ) is a self-report inventory assessing subjective symptoms of oropharyngeal dysphagia with strong content, construct, discriminant, and predictive validity and test-retest reliability in a range of patient populations.

Objective

The main aim of this work was to assess the validity and reliability of the German version of the SSQ (SSQ-G).

Materials and methods

In a cross-validation study, 48 adult German-speaking patients (12 women, 36 men) with neurogenic (n = 16), structural (n = 16), and functional (n = 16) oropharyngeal dysphagia were assessed with the SSQ‑G and the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). Cronbach's α was applied to assess the reliability. Criteria and construct validity were investigated using the Spearman correlation coefficient.

Results

With Cronbach's α = 0.94, the internal consistency of the SSQ‑G was excellent. The SSQ‑G questions 1 and 17 showed a moderately significant and highly significant correlation coefficient of -0.43 and -0.45, respectively, with MDADI question 1 (p < 0.5, p < 0.001). Between questions 8, 11, and 12 of the SSQ‑G and questions 7, 13, and 10 of the MDADI, coefficients of -0.48 to -0.55 showed a moderate to strong highly significant correlation (p < 0.001). Thus, the reliability and criterion and construct validity were statistically confirmed.

Conclusion

The German version of the SSQ (SSQ-G) allows a reliable and valid assessment of functional swallowing difficulties. In combination with questionnaires on symptom-specific quality of life, such as the MDADI, a more differentiated clinical analysis of swallowing problems is thus possible.

SUBMITTER: Bohlender JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8613080 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) claims to assess disrupted self-perception of the back. The aim of this study was to develop a German version of the FreBAQ (FreBAQ-G) and assess its test-retest reliability, its known-groups validity and its convergent validity with another purported measure of back perception. METHODS:The FreBaQ-G was translated following international guidelines for the transcultural adaptation of questionnaires. Thirty-five patients with non-specific CLBP and 48 healthy participants were recruited. Assessor one administered the FreBAQ-G to each patient with CLBP on two separate days to quantify intra-observer reliability. Assessor two administered the FreBaQ-G to each patient on day 1. The scores were compared to those obtained by assessor one on day 1 to assess inter-observer reliability. Known-groups validity was quantified by comparing the FreBAQ-G score between patients and healthy controls. To assess convergent validity, patient's FreBAQ-G scores were correlated to their two-point discrimination (TPD) scores. RESULTS:Intra- and Inter-observer reliability were both moderate with ICC3.1 = 0.88 (95%CI: 0.77 to 0.94) and 0.89 (95%CI: 0.79 to 0.94), respectively. Intra- and inter-observer limits of agreement (LoA) were 6.2 (95%CI: 5.0-8.1) and 6.0 (4.8-7.8), respectively. The adjusted mean difference between patients and controls was 5.4 (95%CI: 3.0 to 7.8, p<0.01). Patient's FreBAQ-G scores were not associated with TPD thresholds (Pearson's r = -0.05, p = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS:The FreBAQ-G demonstrated a degree of reliability and known-groups validity. Interpretation of patient level data should be performed with caution because the LoA were substantial. It did not demonstrate convergent validity against TPD. Floor effects of some items of the FreBAQ-G may have influenced the validity and reliability results. The clinimetric properties of the FreBAQ-G require further investigation as a simple measure of disrupted self-perception of the back before firm recommendations on its use can be made.

Project description:BackgroundIn England, prostate cancer patients report worse experience of care than patients with other cancers. However, no standard measure of patient experience of prostate cancer care is currently available. This paper describes an evaluation of the reliability, validity and acceptability of the PCQ-P, a newly developed instrument designed to measure patient experience of prostate cancer care.MethodsThe reliability, acceptability and validity of the PCQ-P were tested through a postal survey and interviews with patients. The PCQ-P was posted to 1087 prostate cancer patients varying in age, occupation, and overall health status, sampled from five hospitals in England. Nonresponders received one reminder. To assess criterion validity, 935 patients were also sent sections of the National Centre for Social Research Shortened Questionnaire; and to assess test-retest reliability, 296 patients who responded to the questionnaire were resent it a second time three weeks later. A subsample of 20 prostate cancer patients from one hospital took part in qualitative interviews to assess validity and acceptability of the PCQ-P. Acceptability to service providers was evaluated based on four hospitals' experiences of running a survey using the PCQ-P.ResultsQuestionnaires were returned by 865 patients (69.2%). Missing data was low across the sections, with the proportion of patients completing less than 50% of each section ranging from 4.5% to 6.9%. Across the sections of the questionnaire, internal consistency was moderate to high (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.63 to 0.80), and test-retest stability was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.57 to 0.73). Findings on criterion validity were significant. Patient interviews indicated that the PCQ-P had high face validity and acceptability. Feedback from hospitals indicated that they found the questionnaire useful, and highlighted important considerations for its future use as part of quality improvement initiatives.ConclusionThe PCQ-P has been found to be acceptable to patients and service providers, and is ready for use for the measurement of patient experience in routine practice, service improvement programmes, and research.