This White Paper by the European Society for Swallowing Disorders (ESSD) reports on the current state of screening and non-instrumental assessment for dysphagia in adults. An overview is provided on the measures that are available, and how to select screening tools and assessments. Emphasis is placed on different types of screening, patient-reported measures, assessment of anatomy and physiology of the swallowing act, and clinical swallowing evaluation. Many screening and non-instrumental assessments are available for evaluating dysphagia in adults; however, their use may not be warranted due to poor diagnostic performance or lacking robust psychometric properties. This white paper provides recommendations on how to select best evidence-based screening tools and non-instrumental assessments for use in clinical practice targeting different constructs, target populations and respondents, based on criteria for diagnostic performance, psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness), and feasibility. In addition, gaps in research that need to be addressed in future studies are discussed. The following recommendations are made: (1) discontinue the use of non-validated dysphagia screening tools and assessments; (2) implement screening using tools that have optimal diagnostic performance in selected populations that are at risk of dysphagia, such as stroke patients, frail older persons, patients with progressive neurological diseases, persons with cerebral palsy, and patients with head and neck cancer; (3) implement measures that demonstrate robust psychometric properties; and (4) provide quality training in dysphagia screening and assessment to all clinicians involved in the care and management of persons with dysphagia.

Background: Peer assessment has been demonstrated to be an effective educational intervention for health science students. Aims: This study aims to give an overview of all instruments or questionnaires for peer assessments used in medical and allied health professional educational settings and their psychometric characteristics as described in literature. Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out using the electronic databases Pubmed, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO and Web of Science, including all available inclusion dates up to May 2010. Results: Out of 2899 hits, 28 studies were included, describing 22 different instruments for peer assessment in mainly medical educational settings. Although most studies considered professional behaviour as a main subject of assessment and described peer assessment usually as an assessment tool, great diversity was found in educational settings and application of peer assessment, dimensions or constructs as well as number of items and scoring system per questionnaire, and in psychometric characteristics. Conclusions: Although quite a few instruments of peer assessment have been identified, many questionnaires did not provide sufficient psychometric data. Still, the final choice of an instrument for educational purposes can only be justified by its sufficient reliability and validity as well as the discriminative and evaluative purposes of the assessment.

This study analyzed the effect that dysphagia etiology, different observers, and bolus consistency might have on the level of agreement for measurements in FEES images reached by independent versus consensus panel rating. Sixty patients were included and divided into two groups according to dysphagia etiology: neurological or head and neck oncological. All patients underwent standardized FEES examination using thin and thick liquid consistencies. Two observers scored the same exams, first independently and then in a consensus panel. Four ordinal FEES variables were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using a linear weighted kappa coefficient and Bayesian multilevel model. Intra- and interobserver agreement on FEES measurements ranged from 0.76 to 0.93 and from 0.61 to 0.88, respectively. Dysphagia etiology did not influence observers’ agreement level. However, bolus consistency resulted in decreased interobserver agreement for all measured FEES variables during thin liquid swallows. When rating on the consensus panel, the observers deviated considerably from the scores they had previously given on the independent rating task. Observer agreement on measurements in FEES exams was influenced by bolus consistency, not by dysphagia etiology. Therefore, observer agreement on FEES measurements should be analyzed by taking bolus consistency into account, as it might affect the interpretation of the outcome. Identifying factors that might influence agreement levels could lead to better understanding of the rating process and assist in developing a more precise measurement scale that would ensure higher levels of observer agreement for measurements in FEES exams.