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.

Quality of life is an important outcome measurement in objectifying the current health status or therapy effects in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. In this study, the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the Deglutition Handicap Index (DHI) and the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) have been determined for oncological patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. At Maastricht University Medical Center, 76 consecutive patients were selected and asked to fill in three questionnaires on quality of life related to oropharyngeal dysphagia (the SWAL-QOL, the MDADI, and the DHI) as well as a simple one-item visual analog Dysphagia Severity Scale. None of the quality-of-life questionnaires showed any floor or ceiling effect. The test-retest reliability of the MDADI and the Dysphagia Severity Scale proved to be good. The test-retest reliability of the DHI could not be determined because of insufficient data, but the intraclass correlation coefficients were rather high. The internal consistency proved to be good. However, confirmatory factor analysis could not distinguish the underlying constructs as defined by the subscales per questionnaire. When assessing criterion validity, both the MDADI and the DHI showed satisfactory associations with the SWAL-QOL (reference or gold standard) after having removed the less relevant subscales of the SWAL-QOL. In conclusion, when assessing the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the DHI or the MDADI, not all psychometric properties have been adequately met. In general, because of difficulties in the interpretation of study results when using questionnaires lacking sufficient psychometric quality, it is recommended that researchers strive to use questionnaires with the most optimal psychometric properties.

Maximum phonation time: variability and reliability.

The objective of the study was to determine maximum phonation time reliability as a function of the number of trials, days, and raters in dysphonic and control subjects. Two groups of adult subjects participated in this reliability study: a group of outpatients with functional or organic dysphonia versus a group of healthy control subjects matched by age and gender. Over a period of maximally 6 weeks, three video recordings were made of five subjects' maximum phonation time trials. A panel of five experts were responsible for all measurements, including a repeated measurement of the subjects' first recordings. Patients showed significantly shorter maximum phonation times compared with healthy controls (on average, 6.6 seconds shorter). The averaged interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) over all raters per trial for the first day was 0.998. The averaged reliability coefficient per rater and per trial for repeated measurements of the first day's data was 0.997, indicating high intrarater reliability. The mean reliability coefficient per day for one trial was 0.939. When using five trials, the reliability increased to 0.987. The reliability over five trials for a single day was 0.836; for 2 days, 0.911; and for 3 days, 0.935. To conclude, the maximum phonation time has proven to be a highly reliable measure in voice assessment. A single rater is sufficient to provide highly reliable measurements.