Revisiting the psychometric properties of a revised Danish version of the McGill ingestive skills assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: During a longstanding validation process of the Danish version of the McGill Ingestive Skills Assessment (MISA2-DK) for measuring mealtime performance in dysphagic clients, extensive revisions have been undertaken. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the psychometric properties of this revised version. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 328 adults referred to occupational therapy for swallowing evaluation were included. MISA2-DK with 36 items distributed into four subscales (positioning for meals, self-feeding skills, liquid ingestion, and solid ingestion) was administered as observation during a meal. Statistical analysis included item analysis by the Rasch model and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Results: The initial analysis of MISA2-DK presented misfit to the Rasch model, which was resolved by grouping items within subscales into testlets to adjust for local item dependency. However, when testing the items within each subscale, the subscale structure was not supported. The EFA and further item analysis by the Rasch model suggested a different distribution of items—namely, anticipation, bolus preparation, bolus propulsion, and airway protection. Conclusion: The total MISA2-DK score might provide a unidimensional measure of mealtime performance. However, for detailed information of qualitative aspects of dysphagic clients’ mealtime performance, the four EFA-derived subscale domains are recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".