↓ Skip to main content

The Dysphagia Handicap Index: Development and Validation

Overview of attention for article published in Dysphagia (0179051X), March 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
The Dysphagia Handicap Index: Development and Validation
Published in
Dysphagia (0179051X), March 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00455-011-9336-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice K. Silbergleit, Lonni Schultz, Barbara H. Jacobson, Tausha Beardsley, Alex F. Johnson

Abstract

Quality-of-life indicators for dysphagia provide invaluable information to the treating clinician regarding the success or failure of swallowing therapy. The purpose of this study was to develop a clinically efficient, statistically robust patient-reported outcomes tool that measures the handicapping effect of dysphagia on emotional, functional, and physical aspects of individual's lives. 60 statements describing the handicapping effect of dysphagia were collected from patient reports and divided into subscales of physical, emotional, and functional problems. The statements were presented to 77 individuals with dysphagia. Respondents replied never, sometimes, or always to each statement and rated their self-perceived dysphagia severity on a 7-point equal-appearing interval scale. Cronbach's α was performed to assess the internal consistency validation of the items within the questionnaire. The final questionnaire was reduced to 25 items and administered to 214 individuals with dysphagia and 74 controls. Test-retest was performed on 63 individuals with dysphagia. Cronbach's α for the initial and final versions was strong at r = 0.96 and r = 0.94, respectively. Significant differences occurred between the dysphagia and control groups. Test-retest reliability was strong. We present a new, easy-to-complete, statistically robust, patient-reported outcomes measure for assessing the handicapping effect of dysphagia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Unspecified 11 9%
Other 33 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 24%
Unspecified 14 12%
Linguistics 7 6%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#9,937,428
of 12,985,916 outputs
Outputs from Dysphagia (0179051X)
#685
of 796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,052
of 118,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dysphagia (0179051X)
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,985,916 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 118,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.