Clinical Validity of the SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE Outcome Tools with Respect to Bolus Flow Measures
Abstract
The aim of this study was to quantify the association between a dysphagia-specific quality of life (SWAL-QOL) and quality of care (SWAL-CARE) questionnaire and four measures of bolus flow. Three hundred eighty-six people with oropharyngeal dysphagia completed a videofluoroscopic examination of their swallowing structure and physiology. They also completed the SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE surveys. Measures of bolus flow patterns for each swallow were analyzed from videofluoroscopic recordings and correlated with the SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE scale scores. The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE scales were modestly related to the four measures of the bolus flow. The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE were most related to measures of oral transit duration and total swallow duration. The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE scales were least related to pharyngeal transit duration. Results were stronger for semisolid trials than for liquid trials. Results were generally weak for the Penetration Aspiration Scale. For all of the significant relationships, the greater the bolus flow severity, the worse the quality of life. The observed modest correlations suggest that patient-centered quality-of-life measures and clinician-driven bolus flow measures provide distinct yet complementary information about oropharyngeal dysphagia. Both sets of measures should be used in dysphagia effectiveness and outcomes research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
All SWAL-QOL scales exhibit internal consistency and test-retest reliability.
“All of the SWAL-QOL scales exhibit internal consistency and test-retest reliability.”
From MBS Measurement Tool for Swallow Impairment—MBSImp: Establishing a Standard (2008) · cites this paper as [64]
The SWAL-QOL is a 44-item tool with ten multi-item scales, and higher scores indicate better quality of life.
“The SWAL-QOL is a 44-item tool consisting of ten multi-item scales (food selection, burden, mental health, social functioning, fear, eating duration, eating desire, communication, sleep, and fatigue) [63, 64].”
From MBS Measurement Tool for Swallow Impairment—MBSImp: Establishing a Standard (2008) · cites this paper as [64]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 109
- Authors
- McHorney, C. A., Martin-Harris, B., Robbins, J., & Rosenbek, J.
- Affiliations
- Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- University of Florida Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- McHorney, Colleen A.
- ORCID
- McHorney, Colleen A.
- Venue
- Dysphagia
- Published
- 2006-05-17
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 141-148
- ISSN
- 0179-051X (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0460
- OpenAlex
- W2122378984
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 13.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Dysphagia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG022067)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
- Keywords
- oropharyngeal dysphagia, SWAL-QOL, quality of life, quality of care, bolus flow, videofluoroscopy, Penetration-Aspiration Scale, patient-reported outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Deglutition Disorders, Female, Fluoroscopy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Quality of Health Care, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Videotape Recording, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review