ArticleDysphagia2017
Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) Using Rasch Analysis.
Article in Dysphagia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frequency and associated factors for swallowing impairment in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2022Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence for dysphagia screening: A machine learning approach.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Predictors of Self-Reported Swallowing Difficulty in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Can we predict postoperative dysphagia after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion based on lateral x-ray? An external validation of two outcome scores.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Development of a three-item short form of the EAT-10 for screening suspected dysphagia in hospitalized older adults: findings from a multicentre study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Validation and Reliability of the Polish Version of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 Questionnaire.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Newly Diagnosed Head-and-Neck Cancer Patients.Cancers · 2024Article
- The Chinese version of the Ohkuma questionnaire: reliability analysis and diagnostic value.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2024Article
- A Psychometric Evaluation of the Dysphagia Handicap Index Using Rasch Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A scoping review of Rasch analysis and item response theory in otolaryngology: Implications and future possibilities.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) Scores to Detect Self-Reported Dysphagia in Brazilians.Dysphagia · 2023Article
- Rasch Analysis of the Korean Version of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Development and Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Tamil Version of Eating Assessment Tool - 10 (EAT-10): Preliminary Findings from Persons with Head and Neck Cancer.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023Article
- Analysis of Dysphagia and Cough Strength in Patients with Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis.Dysphagia · 2023Observational
- Editorial: Screening for Dysphagia: Time Is Now!The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2023Article
- History and Science behind the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (Eat-10): Lessons Learned.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2023Review
- Reliable change in developmental outcomes of Brain BalanceFrontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Cross-cultural Adaption, Validation and Factor Analysis of the Persian Version of the Eating Assessment Tool: EAT-10.Dysphagia · 2022Article
- Discriminant Ability of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 to Detect Swallowing Safety and Efficiency Impairments.The Laryngoscope · 2022Article
- Slovak Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT10Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early and reliable screening for oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) symptoms in at-risk populations is important and a crucial first stage in effective OD management. The Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) is a commonly utilized screening and outcome measure. To date, studies using classic test theory methodologies report good psychometric properties, but the EAT-10 has not been evaluated using item response theory (e.g., Rasch analysis). The aim of this multisite study was to evaluate the internal consistency and structural validity and conduct a preliminary investigation of the cross-cultural validity of the EAT-10; floor and ceiling effects were also checked. Participants involved 636 patients deemed at risk of OD, from outpatient clinics in Spain, Turkey, Sweden, and Italy. The EAT-10 and videofluoroscopic and/or fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing were used to confirm OD diagnosis. Patients with esophageal dysphagia were excluded to ensure a homogenous sample. Rasch analysis was used to investigate person and item fit statistics, response scale, dimensionality of the scale, differential item functioning (DIF), and floor and ceiling effect. The results indicate that the EAT-10 has significant weaknesses in structural validity and internal consistency. There are both item redundancy and lack of easy and difficult items. The thresholds of the rating scale categories were disordered and gender, confirmed OD, and language, and comorbid diagnosis showed DIF on a number of items. DIF analysis of language showed preliminary evidence of problems with cross-cultural validation, and the measure showed a clear floor effect. The authors recommend redevelopment of the EAT-10 using Rasch analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.