Advertisement

Impact of formal training on agreement of videofluoroscopic swallowing study interpretation across and within disciplines

  • Alice K. Silbergleit
  • Diana Cook
  • Scott Kienzle
  • Erica Boettcher
  • Daniel Myers
  • Denise Collins
  • Edward Peterson
  • Matthew A. Silbergleit
  • Richard Silbergleit
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Formal agreement studies on interpretation of the videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) procedure among speech-language pathologists, radiology house officers, and staff radiologists have not been pursued. Each of these professions participates in the procedure, interprets the examination, and writes separate reports on the findings. The aim of this study was to determine reliability of interpretation between and within the disciplines and to determine if structured training improved reliability.

Methods

Thirteen speech-language pathologists (SLPs), ten diagnostic radiologists (RADs) and twenty-one diagnostic radiology house officers (HOs) participated in this study. Each group viewed 24 VFSS samples and rated the presence or absence of seven aberrant swallowing features as well as the presence of dysphagia and identification of oral dysphagia, pharyngeal dysphagia, or both. During part two, the groups were provided with a training session on normal and abnormal swallowing, using different VFSS samples from those in part one, followed by re-rating of the original 24 VFSS samples. A generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach with a binomial link function was used to examine each question separately. For each cluster of tests, as example, all pairwise comparisons between the three groups in the pretraining period, a Hochberg’s correction for multiple testing was used to determine significance. A GEE approach with a binomial link function was used to compare the premeasure to postmeasure for each of the three groups of raters stratified by experience.

Results

The primary result revealed that the HO group scored significantly lower than the SLP and RAD group on identification of the presence of dysphagia (p = 0.008; p = 0.001, respectively), identification of oral phase dysphagia (p = 0.003; p = 0.001, respectively), and identification of both oral and pharyngeal phase dysphagia, (p = 0.014, p = 0.001, respectively) pretraining. Post training there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups on identification of dysphagia and identification of combined oral and pharyngeal dysphagia.

Conclusions

Formal training to identify oropharyngeal dysphagia characteristics appears to improve accuracy of interpretation of the VFSS procedure for radiology house officers. Consideration to include formal training in this area for radiology residency training programs is recommended.

Keywords

Dysphagia Videofluoroscopy Training Reliability Interpretation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this study, informed consent was waived by the institutional review board where the study took place.

References

  1. 1.
    Logemann J (1983) Evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders. Boston: College-Hill PublicationGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Groher M (1984) Dysphagia diagnosis and management. Boston: ButterworthsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wooi M, Scott A, Perry A (2001) Teaching speech pathology students the interpretation of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies. Dysphagia 16:32–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stoeckli SJ, Huisman TAGM, Seifert B, Martin-Harris BJW (2003) Interrater reliability of videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation. Dysphagia 18:53–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCullough GH, Wertz RT, Rosenbeck JC, et al. (2001) Inter- and intrajudge reliability for videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation measures. Dysphagia 16:110–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilcox F, Liss JM, Siegel GM (1996) Interjudge agreement in videofluoroscopic studies of swallowing. J Sp Hr Res 39:144–152Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scott A, Perry A, Bench J (1998) A study of interrater reliability when using videofluoroscopy as an assessment of swallowing. Dysphagia 13:223–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekberg O, Nylander G, Fork FT, et al. (1988) Interobserver variability in cineradiographic assessment of pharyngeal function during swallow. Dysphagia 3:46–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuhlemeier KV, Yates P, Palmer JB (1998) Intra- and interrater variation in the evaluation of videofluorographic swallowing studies. Dysphagia 3:142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibson E, Phyland D, Marschner I (1995) Rater reliability of the modified barium swallow. Austral J Hum Commun Disord 23(2):54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. (1998) Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American college of radiology breast imaging reporting and data system. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(23):1801–1809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bryant KN, Finnegan E, Berbaum K (2012) VFS interjudge reliability using a free and directed search. Dysphagia 27:53–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berbaum K, Franken EA, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM (2006) Can a checklist reduce sos errors in chest radiography? Acad Radiol 13:296–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin-Harris B, Brodsky M, Michel Y, et al. (2008) MBS measurement tool for swallow impairment-MBSImp: establishing a standard. Dysphagia 23:392–405CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones J (2017) Case study: collaboration comes standard. Am Coll Rad Imaging 3:1–4Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dodds WJ, Logemann JA, Stewart ET (1990) Radiologic assessment of abnormal oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing. AJR 154:965–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenbeck JC, Robbins J, Roecker EB, Coyle JL, Wood JL (1996) A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia 11:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mason RJ, Bremner CG, DeMeester TL, et al. (1998) Pharyngeal swallowing disorders: selection for and outcome after myotomy. Ann Surg 228(4):598–608CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jamadar DA, Carlos R, Caoili EM, et al. (2005) Estimating the effects of informal radiology resident teaching on radiologist productivity:what is the cost of teaching? Acad Radiol 12:123–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Donovan A (2001) Radiology resident teaching skills improvement. Acad Radiol 18(4):518–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    American Board of Radiology. www.theabr.org.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alice K. Silbergleit
    • 1
  • Diana Cook
    • 2
  • Scott Kienzle
    • 2
  • Erica Boettcher
    • 1
  • Daniel Myers
    • 3
  • Denise Collins
    • 3
  • Edward Peterson
    • 4
  • Matthew A. Silbergleit
    • 5
  • Richard Silbergleit
    • 6
  1. 1.Division of Speech-Language Sciences and Disorders, Department of NeurologyHenry Ford Health SystemWest BloomfieldUSA
  2. 2.Division of Speech-Language Sciences and Disorders, Department of NeurologyHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  4. 4.Department of Public Health SciencesHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  5. 5.Student, Literature, Sciences and the ArtsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyBeaumont HealthRoyal OakUSA

Personalised recommendations