The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity and Reliability of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10)
Abstract
Objectives: The Eating Assessment Tool is a self-administered, symptom-specific outcome instrument for dysphagia. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the 10-item Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10). Methods: The investigation consisted of 4 phases: 1) line-item generation, 2) line-item reduction and reliability, 3) normative data generation, and 4) validity analysis. All data were collected prospectively. Internal consistency was assessed with the Cronbach alpha. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. Normative data were obtained by administering the instrument to a community cohort of healthy volunteers. Validity was assessed by administering the instrument before and after dysphagia treatment and by evaluating survey differences between normal persons and those with known diagnoses. Results: A total of 629 surveys were administered to 482 patients. The internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) of the final instrument was 0.960. The test-retest intra-item correlation coefficients ranged from 0.72 to 0.91. The mean (±SD) EAT-10 score of the normal cohort was 0.40 ± 1.01. The mean EAT-10 score was 23.58 ± 13.18 for patients with esophageal dysphagia, 23.10 ± 12.22 for those with oropharyngeal dysphagia, 9.19 ± 12.60 for those with voice disorders, 22.42 ± 14.06 for those with head and neck cancer, and 11.71 ± 9.61 for those with reflux. The patients with oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia and a history of head and neck cancer had a significantly higher EAT-10 score than did those with reflux or voice disorders (p < 0.001). The mean EAT-10 score of the patients with dysphagia improved from 19.87 ± 10.5 to 5.2 ± 7.4 after treatment (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The EAT-10 has displayed excellent internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and criterion-based validity. The normative data suggest that an EAT-10 score of 3 or higher is abnormal. The instrument may be utilized to document the initial dysphagia severity and monitor the treatment response in persons with a wide array of swallowing disorders.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development and Validation of the Voice Handicap Index‐10
Rosen, C. A., Lee, A. S., Osborne, J., Zullo, T., & Murry, T. (2004) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1097/00005537-200409000-00009 · Cited by 1,410
Birring, S. S. (2003) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thorax.58.4.339 · Cited by 1,062
Chen, A., Frankowski, R. F., Bishop‐Leone, J. K., Hébert, T. M., Leyk, S., Lewin, J. S., & Goepfert, H. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 940
Social and Psychological Burden of Dysphagia: Its Impact on Diagnosis and Treatment
Ekberg, O., Hamdy, S., Woisard, V., Wuttge-Hannig, A., & Ortega, P. (2002) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/s00455-001-0113-5 · Cited by 879
McHorney, C. A., Robbins, J., Lomax, K., Rosenbek, J. C., Chignell, K., Kramer, A. E., & Earl Bricker, D. (2002) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/s00455-001-0109-1 · Cited by 758
Swallowing Disorders following Acute Stroke: Prevalence and Diagnostic Accuracy
Mann, G., Hankey, G. J., & Cameron, D. (2000) · Cerebrovascular Diseases · doi:10.1159/000016094 · Cited by 384
McHorney, C. A., Bricker, D. E., Kramer, A. E., Rosenbek, J. C., Robbins, J., Chignell, K. A., Logemann, J. A., & Clarke, C. (2000) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/s004550010012 · Cited by 371
Evaluation of a Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire
French, C. T., Irwin, R. S., Fletcher, K. E., & Adams, T. M. (2002) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.121.4.1123 · Cited by 363
Dysphagia: epidemiology, risk factors and impact on quality of life – a population‐based study
ESLICK, G. D., & TALLEY, N. J. (2008) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03664.x · Cited by 305
Wallace, K. L., Middleton, S., & Cook, I. J. (2000) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(00)70137-5 · Cited by 269
Cited by
Baijens, L. W., Clavé, P., Cras, P., Ekberg, O., Forster, A., Kolb, G., Leners, J. C., Masiero, S., Mateos del Nozal, J., Ortega, O., et al. (2016) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s107750 · Cited by 773
Diagnosis and Management of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia Among Older Persons, State of the Art
Ortega, O., Martín, A., & Clavé, P. (2017) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2017.02.015 · Cited by 283
Lechien, J. R., Geneid, A., Bohlender, J. E., Cantarella, G., Avellaneda, J. C., Desuter, G., Sjogren, E. V., Finck, C., Hans, S., Hess, M., et al. (2023) · European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology · doi:10.1007/s00405-023-08211-6 · Cited by 107
Krznarić, Ž., Bender, D. V., Laviano, A., Cuerda, C., Landi, F., Monteiro, R., Pirlich, M., & Barazzoni, R. (2020) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2020.05.006 · Cited by 79
Chapin, J. L., Gray, L. T., Vasilopoulos, T., Anderson, A., DiBiase, L., York, J. D., Robison, R., Wymer, J., & Plowman, E. K. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236804 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Belafsky, P. C., Mouadeb, D. A., Rees, C. J., Pryor, J. C., Postma, G. N., Allen, J., & Leonard, R. J.
- Venue
- Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 919-924
- ISSN
- 0003-4894 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-572X
- OpenAlex
- W2100669773
- Cited by
- 1,751
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 13.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity and Reliability of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/000348940811701210
- The paper
- Belafsky, P. C., Mouadeb, D. A., Rees, C. J., Pryor, J. C., Postma, G. N., Allen, J., & Leonard, R. J. (2008). Validity and Reliability of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10). Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940811701210
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
