Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Farneti D. Pooling score: an endoscopic model for evaluating severity of dysphagia. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2008;28(3):135–40.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K, Berke GS. Individual differences in voice quality perception. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35(3):512–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahearn EP. The use of visual analog scales in mood disorders: a critical review. J Psychiatr Res. 1997;31(5):569–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Yiu EM, Ng CY. Equal appearing interval and visual analogue scaling of perceptual roughness and breathiness. Clin Linguist Phon. 2004;18(3):211–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stevens SS. Psychophysics. New York: Wiley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  21. Higgin J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: the cochrane collaboration. Blackwell: Wiley; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Rousson V, Gasser T, Seifert B. Assessing intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliability of continuous measurements. Stat Med. 2002;21(22):3431–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McDonald J. Handbook of biological statistics. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Sparky House Publishing; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boston Medical Center, FGH Building 820 Harrison Ave, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Jessica M. Pisegna & Susan E. Langmore

  2. Boston University, Sargent College, 635 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Jessica M. Pisegna & Susan E. Langmore

  3. The University of Tokyo Hospital Rehabilitation Center, Tokyo, Japan

    Asako Kaneoka

  4. University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Rebecca Leonard

Authors
  1. Jessica M. Pisegna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asako Kaneoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Leonard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susan E. Langmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica M. Pisegna.

Additional information

Portions of this manuscript were presented at the Dysphagia Research Society in Portland, Oregon on Saturday, March 4, 2017.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 38542 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 28294 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (MP4 37266 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pisegna, J.M., Kaneoka, A., Leonard, R. et al. Rethinking Residue: Determining the Perceptual Continuum of Residue on FEES to Enable Better Measurement. Dysphagia 33, 100–108 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9838-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9838-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation