Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Stage 2: Psychometric evaluation of the DSQ (version 4.0) to assess the construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability and responsiveness of the DSQ in patients with EoE at baseline (visit 2)

From: Psychometric validation of the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis treated with budesonide oral suspension

Parameter All patients (n = 93)
Construct validity – known-groups method  
 EoE Symptom Survey, amean DSQ score  
 Heartburn (− vs +) 26.6 vs 34.3 (p = 0.0140)
 Chest pain (− vs +) 27.6 vs 34.1 (p = 0.0448)
 Regurgitation (− vs +) 26.7 vs 34.9 (p = 0.0092)
 Abdominal pain (− vs +) 28.7 vs 31.8 (p = 0.3476)
 Nausea (− vs +) 27.7 vs 34.9 (p = 0.0325)
 Vomiting (− vs +) 26.9 vs 49.2 (p < 0.0001)
Concurrent validity – PGA of disease activity, bmean DSQ score 21.1 vs 29.5 vs 33.7 (p = 0.0709)
Test−retest reliability c ICC = 0.82
Responsiveness, dmean DSQ score  
 Responder (≤6 eos/hpf) −16.2 (14.3) [−1.09], p < 0.0001
 Non-responder (>6 eos/hpf) −9.9 (11.6) [−0.67], p < 0.0001
  1. ANOVA analysis of variance, DSQ Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire, EoE eosinophilic esophagitis, eos eosinophils, hpf high-power field, ICC intra-class correlation coefficient, PGA Physician Global Assessment, SES standardized effect size
  2. aComparison of mean DSQ scores for patients with (+) or without (−) symptom (p value, paired t-test): heartburn, − (n = 54) + (n = 38); chest pain, − (n = 61) + (n = 31); regurgitation, − (n = 57) + (n = 35); abdominal pain, − (n = 61) + (n = 31); nausea, − (n = 65) + (n = 27); vomiting, − (n = 80) + (n = 12)
  3. bComparison of mean DSQ scores for patients with none to mild (n = 10), moderate (n = 56) or worst possible disease (n = 26) (p value, one-way ANOVA)
  4. cTest–retest reliability, n = 93
  5. dResponsiveness defined as mean change in DSQ score from baseline (visit 2), mean change (SD) [SES], p value (responders [≤6 eos/hpf], n = 20; non-responders [>6 eos/hpf], n = 67)