Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵÍøÕ¾

Acute Stroke: (Umay et al., 2018; n = 141; mean age = 63.27 (9.85); female, n = 47; left-sided stroke, n = 58; mean time since stroke = 11.64 (5.47) days; SEM calculated; Turkish translation of MASA into T-MASA) 

• SEM for group with normal scores from 1^st rater (n = 17): 7.700
• SEM for group with dysphagia level scores from 1^st rater (n = 124): 6.830
• SEM for group with normal scores from 2^nd rater (n = 14): 7.690
• SEM for group with dysphagia level scores from 2^nd rater (n = 127): 6.592

Acute Stroke: (Sterbini et al., 2024, n = 78; mean age = 69.03 (14.63); female, n = 44; left sided brain injury, n = 47; right sided brain injury, n = 31; Italian translation of MASA into MASA-IT) 

• SEM for entire group (n = 78): 2.585

Acute Stroke: (Umay et al., 2018; MDC calculated) 

• MDC for group with normal scores from 1^st rater at 95% CI (n = 17): 21.34 
• MDC for group with dysphagia level scores from 1^st rater at 95% CI (n = 124): 18.83 
• MDC for group with normal scores from 2^nd rater at 95% CI (n = 14): 21.32
• MDC for group with dysphagia level scores from 2^nd rater at 95% CI (n = 127): 18.27

Acute Stroke: (Sterbini et al., 2024) 

• MDC for entire group (n = 78) at 95% CI: 7.17

Acute Stroke: (Mann, 2002; n = 128; Mann, Hankey, & Cameron, 2000 ; n= 128 ; mean age = 71 ; assessed <7 days since symptom onset)

• < 180 indicates a diagnosis of dysphagia (sensitivity 71%)
• > 180 indicates a patient who is nondysphagic (specificity 72%)

Acute Stroke: (Antonios et al, 2010; n=150; mean age = 64.5 (14.4) years;  assessed mean hours post stroke 88.03 (56.30) < 94 was the optimal cut point, for the identification of dysphagia

• MMASA administered by the first neurologist (N1) identified dysphagia in 57 (38%; 95% CI: 30.6-46) patients, whereas the MMASA administered by the second neurologist (N2) identified dysphagia in 55 (36.7%, 95% CI: 29-45) patients.
• With use of the original MASA, 36.2% demonstrated dysphagia.

Acute Stroke: (Mann, 2002)

• Nondysphagic patients= mean score 185 (SD 10.9); median score 187 (range 159-200)
• Dysphagic patients= mean score 163.8 (SD 22); median score 166 (range 105-199)
  • Mild dysphagia mean score = 173
  • Moderate dysphagia mean score = 160
  • Severe dysphagia mean score= 132

Acute Stroke: (Antonios et al., 2010).

• Mean MASA Score for the 54 patients identified with dysphagia was 136.7 (SD:50)
• Mild dysphagia in 21 patients with a score range = 168-177
• Moderate dysphagia in 17 patients with a score range = 139-167
• Severe dysphagia in 16 patients with scores = ¡Ü138.

Acute Stroke: (Mann, 2002)

Measured via agreement between two speech pathologists:

• Excellent interrater reliability (Kappa= 0.82) for dysphagia
• Excellent interrater reliability (Kappa= 0.75) for aspiration

Acute Stroke: (Antonios et al., 2010)

• Excellent:  Interrater agreement between the neurologists using the MMASA: k=0.76; SE=0.082

Acute Stroke: (Umay et al., 2018) 

• Excellent interrater reliability for the total T-MASA score and each individual item on the T-MASA: (ICC > 0.9, p = 0.001)

Acute Stroke: (Sterbini et al., 2024)

• Excellent interrater reliability: ICC = 0.999 (p < 0.01)

Acute Stroke: (Mann, 2002)

• Excellent  internal consistency: Standardized Cronbach's alpha = 0.9166*

Acute Stroke, Normative Sample: (Antonios et al., 2010, n = 12)

• Excellent: Cronbach's alpha of 0.94*, indicating the items are sufficiently homogeneous, with high internal consistency on each of the 12 items.

Acute Stroke: (Umay et al., 2018) 

• Excellent internal consistency: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.899 and 0.901* from tests performed by two PMR specialists

Acute Stroke: (Sterbini et al., 2024) 

• Excellent internal consistency for the MASA-IT: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.88 (p < 0.01). 
• Excellent item-level internal consistency for the MASA-IT: Cronbach¡¯s alpha ¡Ý 0.8 for each item

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Predictive validity:

Acute Stroke: (Mann, 2002)

• Excellent  predictive validity for identifying patients with dysphagia (Positive predictive value = 92%)

Acute Stroke: (Antonios et al., 2010.)

• Sensitivity and specificity in the detection of dysphagia was high for the results obtained from both neurologists (sensitivity: 92% and 87%, respectively; specificity: 86.3% and 84.2%, respectively).

Acute Stroke: (Umay et al., 2018) 

• Excellent: Total T-MASA scores for dysphagia had 96.5%¨C 96.7% sensitivity and 83.3%¨C83.7% specificity, with overall accuracy of 91.5%¨C97.2%

Concurrent Validity:

Acute Stroke: (Sterbini et al., 2024) 

• Excellent correlation between the MASA-IT and the Italian version of the Dysphagia Outcome Severity Scale (DOSS) (r = 0.949, p = 0.01) 
• Excellent correlation between the MASA-IT and the Test De Pippo¡ªThree Oz Water Swallow (r = ?0.783, p = 0.01)

Convergent Validity:

Acute Stroke: (Umay et al., 2018)

• Adequate correlations between the T-MASA scores of the two raters and the results of the flexible fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) (r = ¨C0.324, p = 0.001; r = ¨C0.302, p = 0.001, respectively)

Acute Stroke: (Mann, 2002)

Content validity of the MASA was determined via a review of the literature which ¡°confirmed that the items included in the MASA samples all the relevant clinical dimensions of acquired swallowing dysfunction¡± (Mann, 2002, p.16). The MASA was compared with multiple other previously validated tools to confirm that it included ¡°all domains necessary to adequately describe normal swallowing function of an individual¡± (Mann, 2002, p. 16). The MASA was also determined to reflect current neurophysiological theory of swallowing control and aspects of swallowing physiology identified in the literature.

Acute Stroke: (Mann, 2002)

Mann (2002) reports that the MASA was originally derived from a composite of multiple non standardized clinical assessments that were being used in an acute care setting (p. 15). A panel of 15 content experts identified items that they felt should be included or not included in a clinical assessment of dysphagia and ranked the items with an ordinal score (see table below). The panel also provided comments on any modifications that were recommended, and three sections of the examination underwent minor modifications based on this input.

Item ranking: 1 = poor, 2 = needs major alteration, 3 = minor alterations, 4 = adequate

Acute Stroke: (Antonios et al., 2010.)

• Evidence of dysphagia in 54 patients. Mean MASA score for patients with dysphagia was 136.7 (50); severe dysphagia (MASA¡Ü138) was identified in 16 patients; moderate dysphasia (139-167) in 17 patients; mild dysphagia (168-177) in 21 patients.
• MMASA administered by the first neurologist (N1) identified dysphagia in 57 (38%; 95% CI: 30.6-46) patients, whereas the MMASA administered by the second neurologist (N2) identified dysphagia in 55 (36.7%, 95% CI: 29-45) patients.
• With use of the original MASA, 36.2% demonstrated dysphagia.

Cancer: (Carnaby & Crary, 2014; n=50; mean age= 57.6 (11.35) years; mean time post diagnosis= 35 days)

The modified MASA-C was developed for use in patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. This patient population frequently experiences dysphagia as a side effect (Carnaby & Crary, 2014).

• Optimal cut point to identify any dysphagia: <185 (Sensitivity of this cut point for detection of dysphagia= 83%, specificity = 96%) (Carnaby & Crary, 2014, p. 599).
• Optimal cut point to identify presence of any aspiration: <176

Cancer: (Carnaby & Crary, 2014)

• Mean MASA-C score for dysphagic patients (identified by VFE): 177 (14.01)
• Mean MASA-C score for dysphagia severity (identified by VFE): mild=183 (9.8); moderate= 172.6 (12), severe 163.4 (8)
• Mean MASA-C score for patients demonstrating aspiration: 167 (12.09)

Cancer: (Carnaby & Crary, 2014)

• Excellent test-retest reliability: (ICC= 0.96 [baseline] and 0.92 [posttreatment])

Cancer: (Carnaby & Crary, 2014)

• Excellent interrater reliability (ICC= 0.96)
• Excellent intrarater reliability (ICC= 0.94)

Cancer: (Carnaby & Crary, 2014)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.94
• High item consistency (relationship of individual exam items to overall exam score, r >0.5

Predictive Validity

Cancer: (Carnaby & Crary, 2014)

• Excellent predictive validity: ROC analysis- area under the curve: 0.95 (0.84-0.99)

Concurrent Validity

Cancer: (Carnaby & Crary, 2014)

Concurrent validity: The MASA-C was compared to:

•  
  • Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy- Head and Neck (FACT H&N): Adequate; r=0.488
  • Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS): Excellent; r=0.8295
  • Videofluoroscopic assessment (VFE) score: Poor; r= -0.3901
  • Original MASA: Excellent; r=0.699

The developers of the MASA-C, conducted a theoretical review, via previous literature, to identify specific items related to the population of head and neck cancer patients. Five expert reviewers were asked to rate the potential new items added to the MASA-C, then a field test of all items, both new and original, was performed on the first ten subjects in the study. An item analysis was used to determine the value of each new item on the revised test, then revised items were selected on the basis of correlation, with items having an individual Cronbach¡¯s alpha of .0.85 denoting inclusion (Carnaby & Crary, 2014).

Cancer: (Carnaby & Crary, 2014; n=50; mean age= 57.6 (11.35) years; mean time post diagnosis= 35 days)

• No floor/ceiling effects reported at this time.

Cancer: (Carnaby & Crary, 2014; n=50; mean age= 57.6 (11.35) years; mean time post diagnosis= 35 days)

• For every 10 point rise in MASA-C score, the odds of a favorable outcome posttreatment rose by 15.49 times compared to patients not improving their MASA-C score
• Carnaby and Crary (2014) recommend further research to identify the MASA-C¡¯s ability to predictively map outcomes for this population over longer time periods (p. 601).

Pneumonia: (Chojin et al., , 2017; n=153; mean age = 85.4 (9.9) years; females 96, males 57; length of hospital stay = 19.1 (11.9) days, administered 3 days post-admission MASA Score severity adopted from Mann (2002) for stroke patients:

• No aspiration risk Score ¡Ý 170 (170-200)
• Mild aspiration risk Score149-169
• Moderate aspiration risk Score 141-148
• Severe aspiration risk Score ¡Ü 140
• The authors noted ¡°we used the cut-off levels determined in acute stroke patients, but more optimal cut off levels should be identified in the future¡± (Chojin et al., 2017, p. 428).

Pneumonia (Chojin et al., , 2017):

• Normal MASA Score ¡Ý 170 (170-200) - noted in 28.1% of patients in the current study
• Abnormal Score (¡Ü 169) was noted in 71.9% of patients

Assessment item of the MASA

• Abnormal respiration - 100% of patients
• Abnormal oral transit - 86.9%
• Abnormal tongue strength - 79.7%
• Abnormal respiratory rate for swallowing - 79.1% (full list below)

Number of abnormality of the clinical assessment items of the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability.

Clinical assessment items Number of abnormality (%)

Alertness 69 (45.1)

Cooperation 95 (62.1)

Auditory comprehension 119 (77.8)

Respiration 153 (100)

Respiratory rate for swallowing 121 (79.1)

Dysphasia 83 (54.2)

Dyspraxia 41 (26.8)

Dysarthria 103 (67.3)

Saliva 34 (22.2)

Lip Seal 95 (62.1)

Tongue movement 105 (68.6)

Tongue strength 122 (79.7)

Tongue coordination 131 (85.6)

Oral preparation 86 (56.2)

Gag 116 (75.8)

Palate 87 (56.9)

Bolus clearance 85 (55.6)

Oral transit 133 (86.9)

Cough reflex 109 (71.2)

Voluntary cough 101 (66.0)

Voice 95 (62.1)

Trachea 1 (0.7)

Pharyngeal phase 103 (67.3)

Pharyngeal response 27 (17.6)

Predictive Validity

Pneumonia (Chojin et al., , 2017)

• ROC curve and analysis-area under the curve for MASA score severity classification and each outcome.
  • AUC 0.74 (0.67-0.82) (adequate) for in-hospital mortality (all 153 patients used)
  • AUC 0.75 (0.68-0.82) (adequate) for recurrence of pneumonia within 30 days (145 patients used)
  • AUC 0.72 (0.67-0.81)(adequate) for 6 month mortality (127 patients used)
  • AUC 0.60 (0.46-0.73) (poor) for detection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (82 patients used)

Multivariate analysis of risk factors for each outcome:

• MASA Score ¡Ü 169 and recurrence of pneumonia within 30 days has odds ratio of 36.20 (95% CI 4.17-314.67, p 0.001)
• MASA Score ¡Ü 169 and 6 month mortality has odds ratio of 21.29 (95% CI 2.49-182.22, p 0.005)

Univariate analysis of risk factors for each outcome:

• MASA Score ¡Ü 169 and recurrence of pneumonia within 30 days has odds ratio of 33.09 (95% CI 4.38-249.78, p 0.001)
• MASA Score ¡Ü 169 and 6 month mortality has odds ratio of 16.98 (95% CI 2.22-130.10, p 0.006)

Concurrent Validity

Pneumonia (Chojin et al., , 2017)

• Adequate  (r = 0.41, p < 0.0001) correlation between the MASA score and the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG) 

Dependent Older Adults with dysphagia: (Ohira et al 2017)

The optimal MASA cut©\off values for diagnosing aspiration and pharyngeal retention were found to be 122 points and 151 points, respectively.  The MASA cut©\off value reported by Mann (170 points) showed sensitivity and specificity values of 0.90 and 0.33, respectively, and a positive likelihood ratio of 1.39.

Mixed Conditions: (Alkhuwaiter & Martin-Harris, 2025; n = 120; mean age = 69.9 (12.9); female, n = 52; diagnoses include cancer, cardiac, gastrointestinal, neurology, and respiratory; prospective cohort study with inclusion criteria: 1) age ¡Ý 18 years, 2) MASA administered during a clinical swallow evaluation, and 3) Received a modified barium swallow study (MBSS) within 48 hours of the MASA) 

• Oral impairment detection cut-off score (n = 54): 170 
• Pharyngeal impairment detection cut-off score (n = 18): 166 
• Penetration detection cut-off score (n = 32): 177
• Aspiration detection cut-off score (n = 33): 174

Dependent Older Adults with dysphagia: (Ohira et al 2017, n=50; mean age = 84.35?¡À?7.95 years, male: female ration 7:13)

Predictive Validity:

Dependent Older Adults with dysphagia: (Ohira et al 2017)

• Excellent:  The MASA showed an AUC of 0.82 and 0.74 for predicting aspiration and pharyngeal retention, respectively.

Mixed Conditions: (Alkhuwaiter & Martin-Harris, 2025) 

• Adequate ability of MASA scores to predict oral impairment (AUC = 0.77, sensitivity 61%, specificity 85%)
  • PPV = 0.77, NPV = 73, +LR = 4.03, -LR = 0.46
• Poor ability of MASA scores to predict pharyngeal impairment (AUC = 0.65, sensitivity 61%, specificity 78%)
  • PPV = 0.33, NPV = 0.92, +LR = 2.83, -LR = 0.50 
• Poor ability of MASA scores to predict penetration (AUC = 0.62, sensitivity 66%, specificity 58%)
  • PPV = 0.36, NPV = 0.82, +LR = 1.56, -LR = 0.59
• Adequate ability of MASA scores to predict aspiration (AUC = 0.72, sensitivity 73%, specificity 64%
  • PPV = 0.44, NPV = 0.86, +LR = 2.04, -LR = 0.42