Validation of the Hebrew Version of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (H-EAT-10)

Abu‐Ghanem, Sara; Schechter, M.; Flesh-Eyni, Hanna; Litwin, Liat; Makai, Esti; Oestreicher‐Kedem, Yael; Yehuda, Moshe

doi:10.1159/000484557

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Cronbach’s alpha value (0.95) was excellent for the total F-EAT-10 score in controls and FEES patients together and was also good for FEES patients alone (0.84), indicating an excellent to good internal consistency. According to the previous validations, Cronbach’s alpha for the total EAT-10 score varied from 0.87 (Sp-EAT-10) to 0.96 (the original EAT-10 of Belafsky), suggesting that our result is consistent with these previous studies [ 13 – 19 , 22 , 35 ]. The ICC indicating test–retest reliability was 0.93 (0.91–0.95) for both controls and FEES patients together and 0.84 (0.76–0.89) for FEES patients alone, indicating excellent to good reproducibility.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Finnish Version of the Eating Assessment Tool (F-EAT-10): A Valid and Reliable Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Dysphagia Evaluation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our aim was to validate a Finnish version of the Eating Assessment Tool (F-EAT-10) for clinical use and to test its reliability and validity in a multicenter nationwide study. Normative data were acquired from 180 non-dysphagic participants (median age 57.0 years, 62.2% female). Dysphagia patients (n = 117, median age 69.7 years, 53.0% female) referred to fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) completed F-EAT-10 before the examination and after 2 weeks. Patients underwent the 100-ml water swallow test (WST) and FEES was evaluated using the following three scales: the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale, Penetration-Aspiration Scale, and the Dysphagia Outcome Severity Scale. An operative cohort of 19 patients (median age 75.8 years, 57.9% female) underwent an endoscopic operation on Zenker’s diverticulum, tight cricopharyngeal muscle diagnosed in videofluorography, or both. Patients completed the F-EAT-10 preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. The cut-off score for controls was < 3 (sensitivity 94.0%, specificity 96.1%) suggesting that ≥ 3 is abnormal. Re-questionnaires for test–retest reliability analysis were available from 92 FEES patients and 123 controls. The intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent for the total F-EAT-10 score (0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.91–0.95). Pearson correlation coefficients were strong (p < 0.001) for each of the questions and the total score. Internal consistency as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha was excellent (0.95). Some correlations between findings in FEES and 100-ml WST with F-EAT-10 were observed. The change in subjective symptoms of operative patients paralleled the change in F-EAT-10. F-EAT-10 is a reliable, valid, and symptom-specific patient-reported outcome measure for assessing dysphagia among Finnish speakers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Although some patients reported symptom changes, some FEES patients did not answer this question and, we cannot exclude the possibility that their symptoms might also have changed. This is a probable explanation for why our test–retest results did not reach as high ICCs and correlations as observed in other studies [ 15 , 18 , 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Finnish Version of the Eating Assessment Tool (F-EAT-10): A Valid and Reliable Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Dysphagia Evaluation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EAT-10 also has good psychometric properties and reliability [11,[43][44][45]64]; however, Cordier et al [64] conducted Rasch analysis on EAT-10 and found that it has significant weaknesses in construction validity, including item redundancy, the lack of easy and difficult items, and different thresholds of rating scale categories. The second question ("My swallowing problem interferes with my ability to go out for meals") is difficult to answer for some patients who have been hospitalized for a long time due to diseases and only present or are diagnosed with dysphagia during hospitalization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each item corresponds to 5 levels of difficulty from "no problem" to "serious problem," with a total score of 0 to 40. EAT-10 has good internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) [11,34,36,37,39,40,[42][43][44][45][46][47]. It has been proven to be useful in screening dysphagia in the oropharyngeal and esophageal phases [11,44] and for swallowing disorders in a healthy population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) in Screening Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhang

et al. 2022

Dysphagia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) is used worldwide to screen people quickly and easily at high risk for swallowing disorders. However, the best EAT-10 cutoff value is still controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we estimated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of EAT-10 cutoff values of 2 and 3 for screening dysphagia. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP databases from May 2008 to March 2022. The meta-analysis included 7 studies involving 1064 subjects from 7 different countries. Two studies were classified as high quality and five studies as medium quality. With an EAT-10 cutoff value of 2, using flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing or video fluoroscopic swallowing study as the gold standard, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–0.93), 0.59 (95% CI 0.39–0.77), 2.17 (95% CI 1.38–3.42), 0.19 (95% CI 0.13–0.29), and 11.49 (95% CI 5.86–22.53), respectively. When a cutoff of 3 was used, these values were 0.85 (95% CI 0.68–0.94), 0.82 (95% CI 0.65–0.92), 4.84 (95% CI 1.72–13.50), 0.18 (95% CI 0.07–0.46), and 26.24 (95% CI 5.06–135.95), respectively. Using EAT-10 cutoff values of 2 and 3, the areas under the curve were 0.873 (95% CI 0.82–0.93) and 0.903 (95% CI 0.88–0.93), respectively, showing good diagnostic performance. EAT-10 can be used as a preliminary screening tool for dysphagia. However, a cutoff of 3 is recommended for EAT-10 due to better diagnostic accuracy.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that this high value was obtained from half of the EAT10 ® items of the questionnaire. Adaptations in other languages show varying degrees of test–retest reliability ranging from r = 0.73 to r = 0.98 [ 17 , 22 , 31 ]. We hypothesize that such variability may be due to inconsistencies in the implementation of test–retest, especially the different times between the test and the retest, different groups of participants (control group vs. dysphagic group), and the cultural differences themselves.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slovak Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT10®)

Frajková

Paouris

Naďo³

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The objective of the study was the language adaptation and verification of psychometric properties of the Slovak version of the EAT10® questionnaire. Methods: The original English version of the questionnaire was translated into the Slovak language. The research group included 136 control participants and 51 dysphagic patients. Test–retest reliability, item analysis, internal consistency, construct and clinical validity, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed to verify the psychometric properties of the Slovak EAT10®. Results: The internal consistency assessed with Cronbach’s alpha is excellent (α = 0.94). Statistical analysis of the Slovak version of EAT10® showed excellent reliability (0.91, p < 0.001) in the test–retest. Through item-to-total correlation, we found out that all items significantly correlated with the overall score in EAT10®. Factor analysis proved a high construct validity. The EAT10® questionnaire was able to reveal a latent variable: a swallowing disorder, which was affecting a group of patients. The clinical validity results confirmed statistically significant differences in the mean scores of the control and dysphagic groups (z = −10.30; p < 0.001). By dividing the dysphagic group into four subgroups (Head and Neck Cancer, Extraesophageal Reflux, Iatrogenic, and Neurological) there were nonsignificant differences in the mean scores of the subgroups. The cut-off value for the Slovak EAT10® is three points. Conclusion: The Slovak EAT10® is a valid and reliable tool designed for the subjective assessment of oropharyngeal dysphagia in patients.

show abstract

Validation of the Hebrew Version of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (H-EAT-10)

Cited by 15 publications

References 32 publications

Finnish Version of the Eating Assessment Tool (F-EAT-10): A Valid and Reliable Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Dysphagia Evaluation

Finnish Version of the Eating Assessment Tool (F-EAT-10): A Valid and Reliable Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Dysphagia Evaluation

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) in Screening Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Slovak Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT10®)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About