Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility and Psychometric Properties of the Adjusted DSWAL-QoL Questionnaire for Dysphagic Patients with Additional Language and/or Cognitive Impairment: Part I

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Dysphagia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Swallowing Quality-of-Life questionnaire (SWAL-QoL) is considered the gold standard for assessing health-related quality of life in people with dysphagia. However, many dysphagic patients struggle to complete this questionnaire because of additional functional sequelae such as language impairment and cognitive disorders. In this study, we sought to develop an adjusted Dutch version of the SWAL-QoL (aDSWALQoL) and to evaluate its psychometric properties and feasibility compared with the original questionnaire. We developed the aDSWAL-QoL based on recommendations from previous literature. The feasibility, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and criterion validity of the aDSWAL-QoL were evaluated in 78 dysphagic patients, among whom 43 had additional language and/or cognitive impairments (DysLC). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 20.0. The aDSWAL-QoL had a higher degree of feasibility for the DysLC group. We obtained high Cronbach’s α coefficients for total scale and for almost all subscales. Total aDSWAL-QoL scores showed excellent testretest agreement and good criterion validity with respect to the DSWAL-QoL. Almost all subscales showed significantly moderate to good test–retest agreement and criterion validity. However, the psychometric properties of the ‘Food selection’ subscale were inadequate. The aDSWAL-QoL is a feasible, reliable, and valid tool for use with DysLC patients. Conversion of the aDSWAL-QoL into an audio computer-assisted self-administered format should be investigated. The construct validity of the aDSWAL-QoL will be evaluated in a separate report.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zraick RI, Atherson SR, Ham BK. Readability of patient-reported outcome questionnaires for use with persons with swallowing disorders. Dysphagia. 2012;27(3):346–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vanderwegen J, Van Nuffelen G, De Bodt M. The validation and psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Swallowing Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (SWAL-QoL). Dysphagia. 2013;28(1):11–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lemmens J, Bours GJ, Limburg M, Beurskens AJ. The feasibility and test-retest reliability of the Dutch Swal-QoL adapted interview version for dysphagic patients with communicative and/or cognitive problems. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(4):891–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Timmerman AA, Speyer R, Heijnen BJ, Klijn-Zwijnenberg IR. Psychometric characteristics of health-related quality-of-life questionnaires in oropharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia. 2014;29(2):183–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed August 2015.

  6. Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, Abdul Nazir CP. Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(4):137–44. doi:10.4103/2229-3485.86879.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hilari K, Byng S, Lamping DL, Smith SC. Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39): evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity. Stroke. 2003;34(8):1944–50. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000081987.46660.ED.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chue WL, Rose ML, Swinburn K. The reliability of the communication disability Profile: a patient-reported outcome measure for aphasia. Aphasiology. 2010;24(6–8):940–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Wit MPT, Kvien TK, Gossec L. Patient participation as an integral part of patient-reported outcomes development ensures the representation of the patient voice: a case study from the field of rheumatology. RMD Open. 2015;1:e000129. doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000129.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Falsetti P, Acciai C, Palilla R, Bosi M, Carpinteri F, Zingarelli A, et al. Oropharyngeal dysphagia after stroke: incidence, diagnosis, and clinical predictors in patients admitted to a neurorehabilitation unit. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;18(5):329–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Daniels SK. Neurological disorders affecting oral, pharyngeal swallowing. GI Motility online. 2006;. doi:10.1038/gimo34.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pedersen PM, Vinter K, Olsen TS. Aphasia after stroke: type, severity and prognosis. The Copenhagen aphasia study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;17:35–43. doi:10.1159/000073896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, Hyman BT, Jack CR, Kawas CH et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement.2011;7(3):263-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005. Accessed March 2016.

  14. Kadojić D, Bijelić BR, Radanović R, Porobić M, Rimac J, Dikanović M. Aphasia in patients with ischemic stroke. Acta Clin Croat. 2012;51(2):221–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nys GMS, van Zandvoort MJE, de Kort PLM, Jansen BPW, de Haan EHF, Kappelle LJ. Cognitive disorders in acute stroke: prevalence and clinical determinants. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23(5–6):408–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rasquin SMC, Verhey FRJ, van Oostenbrugge RJ, Lousberg R, Lodder J. Demographic and CT scan features related to cognitive impairment in the first year after stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75:1562–7. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2003.024190.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dalemans RJ, de Witte LP, Beurskens AJ, van den Heuvel WJ, Wade DT. Psychometric properties of the community integration questionnaire adjusted for people with apahasia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(3):395–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Logsdon RG, Gribbons LE, McCurry S, Linda T. Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosom Med. 2002;64(3):510–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ, Limburg M. Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke. 1997;28:1541–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Spaccavento S, Craca A, Del Prete M, Falcone R, Colucci A, Di Palma A, et al. Quality of life measurement and outcome in aphasia. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10:27–37. doi:10.2147/NDT.S52357.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hepworth LR, Rowe FJ, Harper R, Jarvis K, Shipman T, Rodgers H. Patient reported outcome measures for visual impairment after stroke: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:146. doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0338-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf). 2005;27(3):281–91. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdi031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kroll T, Wyke S, Jahagirdar D, Ritchie K. If patient-reported outcome measures are considered key health-care quality indicators, who is excluded from participation? Health Expect. 2014;17(5):605–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cella D, Hahn EA, Jensen SE, Butt Z, Nowinski J, Rothrock N. Methodological issues in the selection, administration, and use of patient-reported outcomes in performance measurement in health care settings: PRO commissioned paper. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum (NQF); 2012.

  25. McHorney CA, Bricker DE, Kramer AE, Rosenbek JC, Robbins J, Chignell KA, et al. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: I. Conceptual foundation and item development. Dysphagia. 2000;15(3):115–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McHorney CA, Bricker DE, Robbins J, Kramer AE, Rosenbek JC, Chignell KA. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: II. Item reduction and preliminary scaling. Dysphagia. 2000;15(3):122–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McHorney CA, Robbins J, Lomax K, Rosenbek JC, Chignell K, Kramer AE, et al. The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: III. Documentation of reliability and validity. Dysphagia. 2002;17(2):97–114.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Speyer R, Heijnen BJ, Baijens LW, Vrijenhoef FH, Otters EF, Roodenburg N, et al. Quality of life in oncological patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia: validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory and the Deglutition Handicap Index. Dysphagia. 2011;26(4):407–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Khaldoun E, Woisard V, Verin E. Validation in French of the SWAL-QOL scale in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2009;33:167–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lam PM, Lai CKY. The validation of the Chinese version of the Swallow Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (SWAL-QOL) using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Dysphagia. 2011;26(2):117–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Logsdon RG, Gibbons LE, McCurry SM, Teri L. Quality of life in Alzheimer’s Disease: patient and caregiver reports. J Ment Health Aging. 1999;5(1):21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hilari K, Byng S. Measuring quality of life in people with aphasia: the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2001;36(suppl):86–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Worrall L, Rose T, Howe T, Brennan A, Egan J, Oxenham D, et al. Access to written information for people with aphasia. Aphasiology. 2005;19:923–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Boers J. Measuring Quality of Life in Aphasics – Development of the QoL-Aphasia 28 Items. Theses: Utrecht University; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mann G. The Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability. Clifton Park: Thomson Delmar Learning; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Langmore S. Endoscopic evaluation of oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing. GI Motility Online. 2006;. doi:10.1038/gimo28.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Crary MA, Mann GD, Groher ME. Initial psychometric assessment of a functional oral intake scale for dysphagia in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(8):1516–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Graetz P, De Bleser R, Willmes K. Akense Afasie Test. Nederlandse versie. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J psychiat Res. 1975;12:189–98. http://home.uchicago.edu/~/tmurray1/research/articles/printed%20and%20read/mini%20mental%20state_a%20practical%20method%20for%20grading%20the%20cognitive%20state%20of%20patients%20for%20the%20clinician.pdf thg. Accessed Jan 2015

  40. O’Brynant SE, Humphreys JD, Smith GE, Ivnik RJ, Graff-Radford NR, Petersen RC, et al. Detecting dementia with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in highly educated individuals. Arch Neurol. 2008;65(7):963–7. doi:10.1001/archneur.65.7.963.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kukull WA, Larson EB, Teri L, Bowen J, McCormick W, Pfanschmidt ML. The Mini-Mental State Examination score and the clinical diagnosis of dementia. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(9):1061–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dutch vocabulary profile. http://www.zoekeenvoudigewoorden.nl/index.php. Accessed Jan 2016

  44. Council of Europe, common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit. http://www.coe.int/lang-CEFR. Accessed Jan 2016

  45. Jewell G, McCourt ME. Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors. Neuropsychologia. 2000;38:93–110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research. Applications to practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Bour A, Rasquin S, Boreas A, Limburg M, Verhey F. How predictive is the MMSE for cognitive performance after stroke? J Neurol. 2010;257(4):630–7. doi:10.1007/s00415-009-5387-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bogaardt HC, Speyer R, Baijens LW, Fokkens WJ. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Dutch version of SWAL-QoL. Dysphagia. 2009;24(1):66–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol. 2000;104(1):1–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Novella JL, Jochum C, Jolly D, Morrone I, Ankri J, Bureau F, et al. Agreement between patients’ and proxies’ reports of quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(5):443–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sneeuw KC, Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(11):1130–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Somers A, Robays H, Audenaert K, Van Maele G, Bogaert M, Petrovic M. The use of hypnosedative drugs in a university hospital: has anything changed in 10 years? Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(7):723–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Van Excel NJ. Scholte op Reimer WJ, Koopmanschap MA. Assessment of post-stroke quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies: the usefulness of the Barthel Index and the EuroQoL-5D. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):427–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Finizia C, Rudberg I, Bergqvist H, Rydén A. A cross-sectional validation study of the Swedish version of SWAL-QoL. Dysphagia. 2012;27(3):325–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No financial support was received for this study. We would like to thank all of the patients and their SLPs, directors of nursing and their staff, and medical doctors for participating in this study. We are particularly grateful for the assistance provided by the expert panel.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Ingeborg S. Simpelaere

  2. Department of Speech-Language Pathology AZ Delta Hospital, Menen, VIVES University College, Bruges, Belgium

    Ingeborg S. Simpelaere

  3. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium

    Jan Vanderwegen

  4. Thomas More University College, Antwerp, Belgium

    Jan Vanderwegen

  5. Department of Scientific Coordination and Biostatistics, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium

    Kristien Wouters

  6. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Kristien Wouters

  7. Department of Otolaryngology and Rehabilitation Centre for Communication Disorders, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium

    Marc De Bodt & Gwen Van Nuffelen

  8. Department of Translational Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Marc De Bodt & Gwen Van Nuffelen

  9. Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Marc De Bodt & Gwen Van Nuffelen

Authors
  1. Ingeborg S. Simpelaere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Vanderwegen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristien Wouters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc De Bodt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gwen Van Nuffelen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingeborg S. Simpelaere.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for the consent procedure and the experimental protocol of the study was granted by the Committee for Medical Ethics of the Antwerp University Hospital and Antwerp University (B300201318058) and the study was conducted in full accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Appendices

Appendices

See Fig. 3 and Table 7.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Flow chart showing the different stages of the study

Full size image
Table 7 Development of the aDSWAL-QoL: adjustment process of the DSWAL-QoL
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Simpelaere, I.S., Vanderwegen, J., Wouters, K. et al. Feasibility and Psychometric Properties of the Adjusted DSWAL-QoL Questionnaire for Dysphagic Patients with Additional Language and/or Cognitive Impairment: Part I. Dysphagia 32, 401–419 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9770-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9770-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation