Cited by 109Dysphagia Assessment and ManagementVoice and Speech DisordersHead and Neck Cancer Studies

Clinical Validity of the SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE Outcome Tools with Respect to Bolus Flow Measures

McHorney, Colleen A., Martin-Harris, Bonnie, Robbins, JoAnne, Rosenbek, John·2006·Dysphagia

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

Crossref · 10.1007/s00455-005-0026-9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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.
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
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