Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2025
Author Spotlight: Exploring Seaweed's Bioactive Compounds for Sustainable Innovations in Industries
Published on: November 21, 2023
Characterizing the Validity of Using VASES to Derive DIGEST-FEES Grades
James A Curtis1, Lauren Tabor Gray2, Loni Arrese3
1Aerodigestive Innovations Research Lab (AIR), Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.
Introduction:
Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES) and Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity for Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (DIGEST-FEES) are two complimentary methods for assessing swallowing during FEES. Whereas VASES is intended to facilitate trial-level ratings of pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration, DIGEST-FEES is intended to facilitate protocol-level impairment grades of swallowing safety and efficiency. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of using VASES to derive DIGEST-FEES impairment grades.
Methods:
DIGEST-FEES grades were blindly analyzed from 50 FEES - first using the original DIGEST-FEES grading method (n = 50) and then again using a VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grading method (n = 50). Weighted Kappa (κw) and absolute agreement (%) were used to assess the relationship between the original DIGEST-FEES grades and VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades. Spearman's correlations assessed the relationship between VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades with measures of construct validity.
Results:
Substantial agreement (κw = 0.76-0.83) was observed between the original and VASES-derived grading methods, with 60-62% of all DIGEST-FEES grades matching exactly, and 92-100% of DIGEST-FEES grades within one grade of each other. Furthermore, the strength of the relationships between VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades and measures of construct validity (r = 0.34-0.78) were similar to the strength of the relationships between original DIGEST-FEES grades and the same measures of construct validity (r = 0.34-0.83).
Conclusion:
Findings from this study demonstrate substantial agreement between original and VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades. Using VASES to derive DIGEST-FEES also appears to maintain the same level of construct validity established with the original DIGEST-FEES. Therefore, clinicians and researchers may consider using VASES to increase the transparency and standardization of DIGEST-FEES ratings. Future research should seek to replicate these findings and explore the simultaneous use of VASES and DIGEST-FEES in a greater sampling of raters and across other patient populations.
Introduction:
Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES) and Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity for Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (DIGEST-FEES) are two complimentary methods for assessing swallowing during FEES. Whereas VASES is intended to facilitate trial-level ratings of pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration, DIGEST-FEES is intended to facilitate protocol-level impairment grades of swallowing safety and efficiency. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of using VASES to derive DIGEST-FEES impairment grades.
Methods:
DIGEST-FEES grades were blindly analyzed from 50 FEES - first using the original DIGEST-FEES grading method (n = 50) and then again using a VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grading method (n = 50). Weighted Kappa (κw) and absolute agreement (%) were used to assess the relationship between the original DIGEST-FEES grades and VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades. Spearman's correlations assessed the relationship between VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades with measures of construct validity.
Results:
Substantial agreement (κw = 0.76-0.83) was observed between the original and VASES-derived grading methods, with 60-62% of all DIGEST-FEES grades matching exactly, and 92-100% of DIGEST-FEES grades within one grade of each other. Furthermore, the strength of the relationships between VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades and measures of construct validity (r = 0.34-0.78) were similar to the strength of the relationships between original DIGEST-FEES grades and the same measures of construct validity (r = 0.34-0.83).
Conclusion:
Findings from this study demonstrate substantial agreement between original and VASES-derived DIGEST-FEES grades. Using VASES to derive DIGEST-FEES also appears to maintain the same level of construct validity established with the original DIGEST-FEES. Therefore, clinicians and researchers may consider using VASES to increase the transparency and standardization of DIGEST-FEES ratings. Future research should seek to replicate these findings and explore the simultaneous use of VASES and DIGEST-FEES in a greater sampling of raters and across other patient populations.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:19Sieve Analysis and Grading Curves
01:11Glassware Calibration
Volumetric flasks: Volumetric flasks are designed to prepare aqueous solutions of precise volumes accurately with a calibration line on the neck. To calibrate a volumetric flask, it is important to fill it with distilled...
01:29Reliability and Validity
01:10Volatilization
02:41pH Scale
01:19Fineness Modulus
Consider performing sieve analysis on sand through a set of ASTM sieves. The weight of aggregate retained in each sieve and pan placed at the bottom is recorded, as given in Column B of Table 1.
To determine the fineness modulus of...