Can EAT-10 Become EAT-5? Improving Measurement Efficiency of Dysphagia with Item Response Theory

被引:0
|
作者
Ahanotu, Adaobi [1 ]
DeVore, Elliana Kirsh [2 ,3 ]
Carroll, Thomas L. [2 ,3 ]
Edelen, Maria [3 ]
Marcos, Mary [2 ]
Willard, Elizabeth [3 ]
Zhao, Nina W. [4 ,5 ]
Belafsky, Peter [4 ]
Shin, Jennifer J. [2 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[2] Harvard Med Sch, 45 Frances St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Brigham & Womens Hosp, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Univ Calif Davis, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[5] Univ Hosp Cleveland, Med Ctr, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[6] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Ctr Surg & Publ Hlth, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
来源
LARYNGOSCOPE | 2023年 / 133卷 / 12期
关键词
dysphagia; swallowing; validated instrument; item response theory; efficiency; diagnostic utility; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1002/lary.30732
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Objectives: To assess: (1) the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) with item response theory (IRT) to determine which individual items provide the most information, (2) the extent to which dysphagia is measured with subsets of items while maintaining precise score estimates, and (3) if 5-item scales have the differing discriminatory ability, as compared to the parent 10-item instrument. Methods: Prospectively collected data from 2,339 patients who completed the EAT-10 questionnaire during evaluation at a tertiary care otolaryngology clinic were utilized. IRT analyses provided discrimination and location parameters associated with individual questions. Residual item correlations were also assessed for redundant information. Based on these results, three 5-item subsets were further evaluated using item information function curves. Areas under receiver-operator characteristic curves (ROC-AUC) were also calculated to evaluate the discriminatory ability for dysphagia-related clinical diagnoses. Results: Item discrimination parameter estimates ranged from 1.71 to 5.46, with higher values indicating more information. Residual item correlations were determined within item pairs, and location parameters were calculated. Based on these data, in combination with clinical utility, three 5-item subsets were proposed and assessed. ROC-AUC analyses demonstrated no significant difference between the EAT-5-Alpha subset and the original 10-item instrument for discriminating dysphagia as a primary diagnosis (0.88, 0.88). The EAT-5-Clinical subset outperformed the original 10 instruments in ROC-AUC for aspiration. The EAT-5-Range subset was significantly associated with problems with thin liquids. Conclusions: IRT analyses distinguished three proposed 5-item subsets of the EAT-10 instrument, supporting shorter survey options, while still reflecting the impact of dysphagia without significant loss of discrimination.
引用
收藏
页码:3327 / 3333
页数:7
相关论文
共 5 条
  • [1] An Introduction to Item Response Theory and Rasch Analysis: Application Using the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10)
    Kean, Jacob
    Bisson, Erica F.
    Brodke, Darrel S.
    Biber, Joshua
    Gross, Paul H.
    [J]. BRAIN IMPAIRMENT, 2018, 19 (01) : 91 - 102
  • [2] The Ability of the 10-Item Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) to Predict Aspiration Risk in Persons With Dysphagia
    Cheney, Diane M.
    Siddiqui, M. Tausif
    Litts, Juliana K.
    Kuhn, Maggie A.
    Belafsky, Peter C.
    [J]. ANNALS OF OTOLOGY RHINOLOGY AND LARYNGOLOGY, 2015, 124 (05): : 351 - 354
  • [3] Survey of suspected dysphagia prevalence in home-dwelling older people using the 10-Item Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10)
    Igarashi, Kumi
    Kikutani, Takeshi
    Tamura, Fumiyo
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (01):
  • [4] Improving Measurement Efficiency of the Inner EAR Scale with Item Response Theory
    Jessen, Annika
    Ho, Andrew D.
    Corrales, C. Eduardo
    Yueh, Bevan
    Shin, Jennifer J.
    [J]. OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2018, 158 (06) : 1093 - 1100
  • [5] Improving measurement of harms from others' drinking: Using item-response theory to scale harms from others' heavy drinking in 10 countries
    Grittner, Ulrike
    Bloomfield, Kim
    Kuntsche, Sandra
    Callinan, Sarah
    Stanesby, Oliver
    Gmel, Gerhard
    [J]. DRUG AND ALCOHOL REVIEW, 2022, 41 (03) : 577 - 587