Advertisement

Dysphagia

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 100–108 | Cite as

Rethinking Residue: Determining the Perceptual Continuum of Residue on FEES to Enable Better Measurement

  • Jessica M. PisegnaEmail author
  • Asako Kaneoka
  • Rebecca Leonard
  • Susan E. Langmore
Original Article

Abstract

The goal of this work was to better understand perceptual judgments of pharyngeal residue on flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and the influence of a visual analog scale (VAS) versus an ordinal scale on clinician ratings. The intent was to determine if perceptual judgments of residue were more accurately described by equal or unequal intervals. Thirty-three speech language pathologists rated pharyngeal residue from 75 FEES videos representing a wide range of residue severities for thin liquid, applesauce, and cracker boluses. Clinicians rated their impression of the overall residue amount in each video on a VAS and, in a different session, on a five-point ordinal scale. Residue ratings were made in two separate sessions separated by several weeks. Statistical correlations of the two rating methods were carried out and best-fit models were determined for each bolus type. A total of 2475 VAS ratings and 2473 ordinal ratings were collected. Residue ratings from both methods (VAS and ordinal) were strongly correlated for all bolus types. The best fit for the data was a quadratic model representing unequal intervals, which significantly improved the r 2 values for each bolus type (cracker r 2 = 0.98, applesauce r 2 = 0.99, thin liquid r 2 = 0.98, all p < 0.0001). Perceptual ratings of pharyngeal residue demonstrated a statistical relationship consistent with unequal intervals. The present findings support the use of a VAS to rate residue on FEES, allowing for greater precision as compared to traditional ordinal rating scales. Perceptual judgments of pharyngeal residue reflected unequal intervals, an important concept that should be considered in future rating scales.

Keywords

Deglutition FEES Pharyngeal residue Ratings Visual analog scale Prothetic continuum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The lead author would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth Hoover and Dr. Wendy Coster for their input and guidance in the development of this research. We are also grateful for the participation in this investigation by speech pathologists across the United States.

Funding

Salary and tuition support was provided to the first and last authors from National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01DC012584 (PI: Kumar). The Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing of Sargent College (Boston University) also provided financial support for this research via the Dudley Allen Sargent Research Fund.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 38542 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 28294 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (MP4 37266 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Neubauer PD, Rademaker AW, Leder SB. The yale pharyngeal residue severity rating scale: an anatomically defined and image-based tool. Dysphagia. 2015;30(5):521–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaneoka AS, Langmore SE, Krisciunas GP, Field K, Scheel R, McNally E, et al. The boston residue and clearance scale: preliminary reliability and validity testing. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013;65(6):312–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farneti D. Pooling score: an endoscopic model for evaluating severity of dysphagia. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2008;28(3):135–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zraick RI, Liss JM, Dorman MF, Case JL, LaPointe LL, Beals SP. Multidimensional scaling of nasal voice quality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(4):989–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Toner MA, Emanuel FW. Direct magnitude estimation and equal appearing interval scaling of vowel roughness. J Speech Hear Res. 1989;32(1):78–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerratt B, Rosenbek JT, Wertz R, Boysen A. Use and perceived value of perceptual and instrumental measures in dysarthria management. In: Moore C, Yorkston K, Beukelman Brookes D, editors. Dysarthria and apraxia of speech. Baltimore: Brookes; 1991. p. 77–93.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, Antonanzas-Barroso N, Berke GS. Comparing internal and external standards in voice quality judgments. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36(1):14–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K, Berke GS. Individual differences in voice quality perception. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35(3):512–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahearn EP. The use of visual analog scales in mood disorders: a critical review. J Psychiatr Res. 1997;31(5):569–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Averbuch M, Katzper M. Assessment of visual analog versus categorical scale for measurement of osteoarthritis pain. J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;44(4):368–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eadie TL, Doyle PC. Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of naturalness and severity in tracheoesophageal (TE) speakers. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(6):1088–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1983;16(1):87–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kempster GB, Gerratt BR, Verdolini Abbott K, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Hillman RE. Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;18(2):124–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eadie TL, Doyle PC. Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of pleasantness and severity in dysphonic and normal speakers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(6):3014–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng T. Direct magnitude estimation versus visual analogue scaling in the perceptual rating of hypernasality. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/50059: University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong; 2006.
  16. 16.
    Yiu EM, Ng CY. Equal appearing interval and visual analogue scaling of perceptual roughness and breathiness. Clin Linguist Phon. 2004;18(3):211–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stevens SS. Psychophysics. New York: Wiley; 1975.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helou LB, Solomon NP, Henry LR, Coppit GL, Howard RS, Stojadinovic A. The role of listener experience on Consensus Auditory-perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) ratings of postthyroidectomy voice. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010;19(3):248–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelly AM, Leslie P, Beale T, Payten C, Drinnan MJ. Fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and videofluoroscopy: does examination type influence perception of pharyngeal residue severity? Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31(5):425–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pisegna JM, Langmore S. Measuring Residue: Categorical Ratings Versus a Visual Analog Scale. Dysphagia Research Society Annual Convention; March, 12, 2015; Chicago, IL, 2015.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Higgin J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: the cochrane collaboration. Blackwell: Wiley; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rousson V, Gasser T, Seifert B. Assessing intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliability of continuous measurements. Stat Med. 2002;21(22):3431–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baylis A, Chapman K, Whitehill TL, Group TA. Validity and reliability of visual analog scaling for assessment of hypernasality and audible nasal emission in children with repaired cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(6):660–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDonald J. Handbook of biological statistics. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Sparky House Publishing; 2014.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brancamp TU, Lewis KE, Watterson T. The relationship between nasalance scores and nasality ratings obtained with equal appearing interval and direct magnitude estimation scaling methods. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(6):631–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schiavetti N, Martin RR, Haroldson SK, Metz DE. Psychophysical analysis of audiovisual judgments of speech naturalness of nonstutterers and stutterers. J Speech Hear Res. 1994;37(1):46–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Southwood M, Weismer G. Listener judgments of the bizarreness, acceptability, naturalness, and normalcy of the dysarthria associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Med Speech-Lang Pathol. 1993;1:151–61.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG. Categorical data analysis using the SAS system, vol. 8. 2nd ed. Cary: SAS Institute; 2000. p. 626.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pisegna JM, Kaneoka A, Langmore S. Danger Zones: Rating Residue in 3 Zones to Identify Those At Risk for Penetration/Aspiration on FEES. Dysphagia Research Society; February 26, 2016; Phoenix, AZ2016.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brunier G, Graydon J. A comparison of two methods of measuring fatigue in patients on chronic haemodialysis: visual analogue vs Likert scale. Int J Nurs Stud. 1996;33(3):338–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica M. Pisegna
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Asako Kaneoka
    • 3
  • Rebecca Leonard
    • 4
  • Susan E. Langmore
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Boston Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Boston UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.The University of Tokyo Hospital Rehabilitation CenterTokyoJapan
  4. 4.University of California at DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations