Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28388899›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2017

Validation of the Dutch version of the Swallowing Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (DSWAL-QoL) and the adjusted DSWAL-QoL (aDSWAL-QoL) using item analysis with the Rasch model: a pilot study.

Ingeborg S Simpelaere, Gwen Van Nuffelen, Marc De Bodt, Jan Vanderwegen, Tina Hansen

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Development of a Dutch Version of the Sydney Swallow Questionnaire: Assessing Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Severity in Dutch-Speaking Populations.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ingeborg S SimpelaereUniversity of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. ingeborg.simpelaere@vives.be.
Gwen Van NuffelenDepartment of Otolaryngology and Rehabilitation Centre for Communication Disorders, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.
Marc De BodtDepartment of Otolaryngology and Rehabilitation Centre for Communication Disorders, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.
Jan VanderwegenDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
Tina HansenInstitute of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Metropolitan University College, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Antwerp University Hospital · BEGhent University · BEThomas More Kempen · BEUniversity College Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Swallowing Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (SWAL-QoL) is considered the gold standard for assessing health-related QoL in oropharyngeal dysphagia. The Dutch translation (DSWAL-QoL) and its adjusted version (aDSWAL-QoL) have been validated using classical test theory (CTT). However, these scales have not been tested against the Rasch measurement model, which is required to establish the structural validity and objectivity of the total scale and subscale scores. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of these scales using item analysis according to the Rasch model.

methodsItem analysis with the Rasch model was performed using RUMM2030 software with previously collected data from a validation study of 108 patients. The assessment included evaluations of overall model fit, reliability, unidimensionality, threshold ordering, individual item and person fits, differential item functioning (DIF), local item dependency (LID) and targeting.

resultsThe analysis could not establish the psychometric properties of either of the scales or their subscales because they did not fit the Rasch model, and multidimensionality, disordered thresholds, DIF, and/or LID were found. The reliability and power of fit were high for the total scales (PSI = 0.93) but low for most of the subscales (PSI < 0.70). The targeting of persons and items was suboptimal. The main source of misfit was disordered thresholds for both the total scales and subscales. Based on the results of the analysis, adjustments to improve the scales were implemented as follows: disordered thresholds were rescaled, misfit items were removed and items were split for DIF. However, the multidimensionality and LID could not be resolved. The reliability and power of fit remained low for most of the subscales.

conclusionsThis study represents the first analyses of the DSWAL-QoL and aDSWAL-QoL with the Rasch model. Relying on the DSWAL-QoL and aDSWAL-QoL total and subscale scores to make conclusions regarding dysphagia-related HRQoL should be treated with caution before the structural validity and objectivity of both scales have been established. A larger and well-targeted sample is recommended to derive definitive conclusions about the items and scales. Solutions for the psychometric weaknesses suggested by the model and practical implications are discussed.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdultAgedBelgiumDeglutitionDeglutition DisordersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPilot ProjectsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTranslatingDeglutition disordersHealth-related quality of lifeOropharyngeal dysphagiaOutcome assessmentPsychometricsRasch modelSWAL-QoL

Identifiers

PMID28388899
PMCPMC5383953
OpenAlexW2605224038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.