↓ Skip to main content

Adaptation and Assessment of Reliability and Validity of the Greek Version of the Ohkuma Questionnaire for Dysphagia Screening

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adaptation and Assessment of Reliability and Validity of the Greek Version of the Ohkuma Questionnaire for Dysphagia Screening
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, May 2016
DOI 10.1055/s-0036-1580613
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soultana L. Papadopoulou, Georgios Exarchakos, Dimitrios Christodoulou, Stavroula Theodorou, Alexandre Beris, Avraam Ploumis

Abstract

Introduction The Ohkuma questionnaire is a validated screening tool originally used to detect dysphagia among patients hospitalized in Japanese nursing facilities. Objective The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the adapted Greek version of the Ohkuma questionnaire. Methods Following the steps for cross-cultural adaptation, we delivered the validated Ohkuma questionnaire to 70 patients (53 men, 17 women) who were either suffering from dysphagia or not. All of them completed the questionnaire a second time within a month. For all of them, we performed a bedside and VFSS study of dysphagia and asked participants to undergo a second VFSS screening, with the exception of nine individuals. Statistical analysis included measurement of internal consistency with Cronbach's α coefficient, reliability with Cohen's Kappa, Pearson's correlation coefficient and construct validity with categorical components, and One-Way Anova test. Results According to Cronbach's α coefficient (0.976) for total score, there was high internal consistency for the Ohkuma Dysphagia questionnaire. Test-retest reliability (Cohen's Kappa) ranged from 0.586 to 1.00, exhibiting acceptable stability. We also estimated the Pearson's correlation coefficient for the test-retest total score, which reached high levels (0.952; p = 0.000). The One-Way Anova test in the two measurement times showed statistically significant correlation in both measurements (p = 0.02 and p = 0.016). Conclusion The adapted Greek version of the questionnaire is valid and reliable and can be used for the screening of dysphagia in the Greek-speaking patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Unspecified 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 13 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Unspecified 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,929,731
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#114
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,317
of 299,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 646 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 299,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.