No description available.

An estimated 15 million individuals in the United States have been formally diagnosed with dysphagia, defined as swallowing dysfunction -- the fifth leading cause of death in Americans over the age of 65. Statistical findings indicate that at least 50% of these individuals have limited access to treatment. However, despite the rapid expansion of telepractice (defined as the use of telecommunications technology to provide services at a distance) as a statistically valid online method for the provision of medical and clinical intervention to those without access, telepractice has yet to consistently incorporate online dysphagia service delivery (referred to as tele-dysphagia) into its clinical scope. This investigation compared the outcomes of traditional face-to-face intervention to online tele-dysphagia intervention by measuring the correct and incorrect responses to visual and auditory cues presented by a clinician during dysphagia intervention sessions. Data analysis conducted via t-test indicated that there was no significant difference in the mean scores from tele-dysphagia method (M = 9.67, SD = 3.74) as compared to face-to-face method (M = 9.00, SD = 2.70), t (28) = - 0.56, p = 0.580. Additionally, inter-rater reliability scores were obtained by determining a Cohen’s kappa coefficient in order to measure the degree of agreement between the two raters. Findings indicated a kappa statistic of k=1 for all items, given a 100% agreement for all trials. Additionally, results of a mixed-design analysis of variance suggested a significant within-subject effect with the use of cues, but there were no significant main effects of between-subject factors (gender, delivery type, etiology, or age) on the patients’ responses. Given that there was no significant statistical difference between the two delivery methods and inter-rater reliability scores demonstrated perfect agreement, we can suggest that the online tele-dysphagia method can potentially yield clinical outcomes similar to a traditional face-to-face method. Results from a mixed-design analysis of variance additionally suggested that there is a significant within-subject effect given the use of cues (F (1, 29)=14.99, p = .001) on patients’ responses. However, there were no significant main effects of between-subject factors (gender, delivery type, etiology, or age) on the patients’ responses. It is hoped that the results of this study will lend validity and direction to future attempts to provide much-needed dysphagia intervention via online service methods. Such attempts, in turn, would have the potential to promote increased longevity and quality of life in those populations currently unable to access such services.