Colodny Nancy
Department of Speech, Communication Sciences and Theater, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, St. John's University, Jamaica, New York 11439, USA.
Dysphagia. 2002 Fall;17(4):308-15. doi: 10.1007/s00455-002-0073-4.
This study used Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES(R)) to assess the reliability of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) using 79 swallows and four judges in a replication of a study using videofluoroscopy (VFSS). The swallows were diagnosed using FEES, which allowed for comparison between the two techniques. The findings indicated that all categories of the PAS achieved adequate reliability, both on intrajudge and interjudge assessments. Reliabilities, with the exception of Scale Score 7, were higher in this study than in the original study by Rosenbek and associates. Data analysis indicated that judges were more highly consistent on second ratings compared with their original ratings, indicating a learning curve on the PAS. In addition, findings suggested that the FEES was more reliable on assessing penetration than VFSS, but that VFSS was more reliable on the assessment of the various severities of aspiration. The two techniques were equally effective in discriminating between penetration and aspiration. This study found that FEES was just as reliable as VFSS when using the PAS.
本研究采用吞咽功能纤维内镜评估（FEES(R)），在一项使用视频荧光吞咽造影检查（VFSS）的研究复现中，通过79次吞咽测试和四名评判员来评估渗透 - 误吸量表（PAS）的可靠性。使用FEES对吞咽情况进行诊断，从而能够对这两种技术进行比较。研究结果表明，PAS的所有类别在评判员内部和评判员之间的评估中均达到了足够的可靠性。除量表得分7外，本研究中的可靠性高于Rosenbek及其同事的原研究。数据分析表明，与最初评分相比，评判员在第二次评分时的一致性更高，这表明PAS存在学习曲线。此外，研究结果表明，FEES在评估渗透方面比VFSS更可靠，但VFSS在评估误吸的各种严重程度方面更可靠。这两种技术在区分渗透和误吸方面同样有效。本研究发现，使用PAS时，FEES与VFSS一样可靠。
