What is the best method for scoring the severity of dysphagia in a patient?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: January 6, 2026View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Scoring Dysphagia Severity

The Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale (DOSS) is the best validated method for scoring dysphagia severity, providing a systematic 7-point scale with high inter-rater reliability (90%) and intra-rater reliability (93%) that directly links severity ratings to functional recommendations for diet level, independence, and nutrition. 1

Primary Recommended Scoring System

Use the DOSS as your primary severity scoring tool because it systematically rates functional severity based on three critical assessment areas: oral stage bolus transfer, pharyngeal stage retention, and airway protection. 1 The scale ranges from Level 7 (normal in all situations) to Level 1 (severe dysphagia, nothing by mouth), with each level providing specific recommendations for diet consistency, supervision requirements, and nutritional support. 1

The DOSS demonstrates strong criterion validity when used with both videofluoroscopy (VFSS) and flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), with correlation coefficients of rs = 0.936 for DOSS-to-DOSS comparison and rs = 0.858 for DOSS-to-FOIS comparison. 2 This makes it applicable regardless of which instrumental assessment you perform.

Alternative Validated Scales

Functional Outcome Swallowing Scale (FOSS)

The FOSS provides a simpler 6-stage system (Stage 0 through Stage V) that emphasizes functional outcomes and nutritional impact. 3 Use FOSS when you need to track weight loss and aspiration complications over time, as it specifically incorporates:

  • Stage III: Weight loss ≤10% over 6 months or daily aspiration during meals 3
  • Stage IV: Weight loss >10% over 6 months or severe aspiration with bronchopulmonary complications 3
  • Stage V: Nonoral feeding for all nutrition 3

Dysphagia Severity Scale (DSS)

The DSS focuses specifically on videofluoroscopic findings, rating penetration/aspiration (P/A) and pharyngeal retention (PR) separately, then combining them by taking the higher score. 4 This scale correlates well with clinical severity ratings (r = 0.71) and is particularly useful when you need to distinguish between aspiration of different consistencies (thin liquids versus thick liquids/solids). 4

Disease-Specific Considerations

ALS Patients

For ALS patients, incorporate the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) or ALS Swallowing Severity Scale (ALSSS) alongside DOSS, as these disease-specific scales capture progression of bulbar symptoms and correlate with nutritional decline. 5 Screen every 3 months given the median survival of 18-28 months and high risk of aspiration pneumonia (13-15% prevalence). 5

Multiple Sclerosis Patients

In MS patients, use the DYMUS (Dysphagia in Multiple Sclerosis) questionnaire for initial screening, which identifies 92% of symptomatic patients and 14% of asymptomatic patients requiring further evaluation. 5 Follow positive screens with instrumental assessment using DOSS scoring, particularly in patients with cerebellar dysfunction, severe disability (high EDSS scores), or long disease duration. 5

Critical Implementation Factors

Experience and Training Requirements

Ensure raters have >3 years of VFSS experience before relying on DOSS scores for clinical decision-making, as inter-rater reliability is significantly higher in experienced clinicians (κ = 0.342) compared to those with <3 years experience (κ = 0.298). 6

Always include audio recording during VFSS when using DOSS, as reliability drops dramatically without audio (κ = 0.287 with audio versus κ = -0.0395 without audio). 6 The audio component allows assessment of wet vocal quality and cough effectiveness, which are critical for accurate severity rating.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Never rely on bedside clinical examination alone to assign severity scores, as 55% of patients who aspirate have silent aspiration without protective cough reflex. 7 Always confirm with instrumental assessment (VFSS or FEES). 8, 9

  • Do not assume training improves DOSS reliability—paradoxically, one study found inter-rater reliability decreased post-training (κ = 0.218) compared to pre-training (κ = 0.328). 6 This suggests standardized clinical experience matters more than brief training sessions.

  • Avoid using modified barium swallow alone without complete esophageal evaluation, as the American College of Radiology emphasizes that combining videofluoroscopy with biphasic esophagram provides higher diagnostic yield and prevents missing distal pathology causing referred pharyngeal symptoms. 8, 9

Linking Severity to Nutritional Outcomes

Document BMI and weight loss percentage alongside your severity score, as malnutrition prevalence ranges from 0-21% at diagnosis to 7.5-53% during follow-up in neurological dysphagia. 8 Weight loss >10% indicates malnutrition in 21-48% of dysphagic patients and should trigger consideration of enteral nutrition regardless of the specific DOSS level. 8

References

Research

A functional outcome swallowing scale for staging oropharyngeal dysphagia.

Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 1999

Research

[Dysphagia severity scale].

Kokubyo Gakkai zasshi. The Journal of the Stomatological Society, Japan, 2003

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Evaluation of Dysphagia in Patients with Bell's Palsy

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Dysphagia Evaluation and Management

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Evaluation of Dysphagia

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.