Psychometric properties of questionnaires on functional health status in oropharyngeal dysphagia: A systematic literature review
|dc.identifier.citation||Speyer, R. and Cordier, R. and Kertscher, B. and Heijnen, B. 2014. Psychometric properties of questionnaires on functional health status in oropharyngeal dysphagia: A systematic literature review. BioMed Research International. 2014 (Article ID 458678): pp. 1-11.|
Introduction: Questionnaires on Functional Health Status (FHS) are part of the assessment of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the psychometric properties of English-language FHS questionnaires in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Methods: A systematic search was performed using the electronic databases Pubmed and Embase. The psychometric properties of the questionnaires were determined based on the COSMIN taxonomy of measurement properties and definitions for health-related patient-reported outcomes and the COSMIN checklist using preset psychometric criteria. Results: Three questionnaires were included: the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10), the Swallowing Outcome after Laryngectomy (SOAL), and the Self-report Symptom Inventory. The Sydney Swallow Questionnaire (SSQ) proved to be identical to the Modified Self-report Symptom Inventory. All FHS questionnaires obtained poor overall methodological quality scores for most measurement properties. Conclusions: The retrieved FHS questionnaires need psychometric reevaluation; if the overall methodological quality shows satisfactory improvement on most measurement properties, the use of the questionnaires in daily clinic and research can be justified. However, in case of insufficient validity and/or reliability scores, new FHS questionnaires need to be developed using and reporting on preestablished psychometric criteria as recommended in literature.
|dc.publisher||Hindawi Publishing Corporation|
|dc.title||Psychometric properties of questionnaires on functional health status in oropharyngeal dysphagia: A systematic literature review|
|dcterms.source.title||BioMed Research International|
This article is published under the Open Access publishing model and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License