Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 5/2013

01-06-2013

Self- and surrogate-reported communication functioning in aphasia

Auteurs: Patrick J. Doyle, William D. Hula, Shannon N. Austermann Hula, Clement A. Stone, Julie L. Wambaugh, Katherine B. Ross, James G. Schumacher

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2013

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the dimensionality and measurement invariance of the aphasia communication outcome measure (ACOM), a self- and surrogate-reported measure of communicative functioning in aphasia.

Methods

Responses to a large pool of items describing communication activities were collected from 133 community-dwelling persons with aphasia of ≥ 1 month post-onset and their associated surrogate respondents. These responses were evaluated using confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis. Chi-square difference tests of nested factor models were used to evaluate patient–surrogate measurement invariance and the equality of factor score means and variances. Association and agreement between self- and surrogate reports were examined using correlation and scatterplots of pairwise patient–surrogate differences.

Results

Three single-factor scales (Talking, Comprehension, and Writing) approximating patient–surrogate measurement invariance were identified. The variance of patient-reported scores on the Talking and Writing scales was higher than surrogate-reported variances on these scales. Correlations between self- and surrogate reports were moderate-to-strong, but there were significant disagreements in a substantial number of individual cases.

Conclusions

Despite minimal bias and relatively strong association, surrogate reports of communicative functioning in aphasia are not reliable substitutes for self-reports by persons with aphasia. Furthermore, although measurement invariance is necessary for direct comparison of self- and surrogate reports, the costs of obtaining invariance in terms of scale reliability and content validity may be substantial. Development of non-invariant self- and surrogate report scales may be preferable for some applications.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
The term “proxy” has been used with two distinct meanings in the literature. Some authors have used the term to refer to a person close the patient who responds as he or she believes that the patient would respond [9, 16]. Others have used the term to refer to a person close to the patient who provides his or her own assessment, without considering how the patient might respond [12, 14]. In still other cases, the meaning is not clearly specified [13].
 
2
We use the term “surrogate” here to specify the second meaning of the word “proxy” discussed above in Footnote 1, i.e., a person close to the patient who provides his or her own assessment, without trying to respond as he or she thinks that the patient would respond.
 
3
The CFI and TLI are measures of incremental or relative fit that compare the tested model to a null model, which assumes that there are no relationships between any of the observed variables. They both adjust for model complexity, the CFI with an expression that subtracts the model degrees of freedom from the model Chi-square value, while the TLI is based on the ratio of the Chi-square to its degrees of freedom. CFI and TLI values of zero indicate worst possible fit, while values close to 1 indicate relatively good fit. The RMSEA is a badness-of-fit measure where a value of zero indicates best possible fit. It is based on the model Chi-square, its degrees of freedom, and the sample size. The WRMR is a newer statistic that measures the weighted average difference between the observed and model-estimated population variances and covariances.
 
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Darley, F. L. (1982). Aphasia. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders. Darley, F. L. (1982). Aphasia. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.
2.
go back to reference Chapey, R., & Hallowell, B. (2001). Introduction to language intervention strategies in adult aphasia. In R. Chapey (Ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (pp. 3–17). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Chapey, R., & Hallowell, B. (2001). Introduction to language intervention strategies in adult aphasia. In R. Chapey (Ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (pp. 3–17). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
3.
go back to reference Kauhanen, M. L., Korpelainen, J. T., Hiltunen, P., et al. (2000). Aphasia, depression, and non-verbal cognitive impairment in ischaemic stroke. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 10, 455–461.PubMedCrossRef Kauhanen, M. L., Korpelainen, J. T., Hiltunen, P., et al. (2000). Aphasia, depression, and non-verbal cognitive impairment in ischaemic stroke. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 10, 455–461.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Code, C. (2010). Aphasia. In J. S. Damico, N. Muller, & M. J. Ball (Eds.), The handbook of speech and language disorders (pp. 317–338). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef Code, C. (2010). Aphasia. In J. S. Damico, N. Muller, & M. J. Ball (Eds.), The handbook of speech and language disorders (pp. 317–338). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Williams, L. S., Weinberger, M., Harris, L. E., et al. (1999). Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke, 30, 1362–1369.PubMedCrossRef Williams, L. S., Weinberger, M., Harris, L. E., et al. (1999). Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke, 30, 1362–1369.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., Lai, S. M., et al. (1999). The stroke impact scale version 2.0: Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke, 30, 2131–2140.PubMedCrossRef Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., Lai, S. M., et al. (1999). The stroke impact scale version 2.0: Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke, 30, 2131–2140.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Mikolic, J. M., et al. (2004). The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) provides valid and reliable score estimates of functioning and well-being in stroke survivors with and without communication disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 997–1007.PubMedCrossRef Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Mikolic, J. M., et al. (2004). The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) provides valid and reliable score estimates of functioning and well-being in stroke survivors with and without communication disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 997–1007.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hilari, K., Byng, S., Lamping, D. L., et al. (2003). Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39): evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity. Stroke, 34, 1944–1950.PubMedCrossRef Hilari, K., Byng, S., Lamping, D. L., et al. (2003). Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39): evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity. Stroke, 34, 1944–1950.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Long, A., Hesketh, A., Paszek, G., et al. (2008). Development of a reliable self-report outcome measure for pragmatic trials of communication therapy following stroke: the Communication Outcome after Stroke (COAST) scale. Clinical Rehabilitation, 22, 1083–1094.PubMedCrossRef Long, A., Hesketh, A., Paszek, G., et al. (2008). Development of a reliable self-report outcome measure for pragmatic trials of communication therapy following stroke: the Communication Outcome after Stroke (COAST) scale. Clinical Rehabilitation, 22, 1083–1094.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Chue, W. L., & Rose, M. L. (2010). The reliability of the Communication Disability Profile: A patient-reported outcome measure for aphasia. Aphasiology, 64, 940–956.CrossRef Chue, W. L., & Rose, M. L. (2010). The reliability of the Communication Disability Profile: A patient-reported outcome measure for aphasia. Aphasiology, 64, 940–956.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Glueckauf, R. L., Blonder, L. X., Ecklund-Johnson, E., et al. (2003). Functional outcome questionnaire for aphasia: Overview and preliminary psychometric evaluation. NeuroRehabilitation, 18, 281–290.PubMed Glueckauf, R. L., Blonder, L. X., Ecklund-Johnson, E., et al. (2003). Functional outcome questionnaire for aphasia: Overview and preliminary psychometric evaluation. NeuroRehabilitation, 18, 281–290.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Paul, D. R., Fratalli, C. M., Holland, A. L., et al. (2004). Quality of communication life scale. Rockville, MD: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Paul, D. R., Fratalli, C. M., Holland, A. L., et al. (2004). Quality of communication life scale. Rockville, MD: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
13.
go back to reference Hilari, K., Owen, S., & Farrelly, S. J. (2007). Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 78, 1072–1075.CrossRef Hilari, K., Owen, S., & Farrelly, S. J. (2007). Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 78, 1072–1075.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Cruice, M., Worrall, L., Hickson, L., et al. (2005). Measuring quality of life: Comparing family members’ and friends’ ratings with those of their aphasic partners. Aphasiology, 19, 111–129.CrossRef Cruice, M., Worrall, L., Hickson, L., et al. (2005). Measuring quality of life: Comparing family members’ and friends’ ratings with those of their aphasic partners. Aphasiology, 19, 111–129.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hesketh, A., Long, A., & Bowen, A. (2010). Agreement on outcome: Speaker, carer, and therapist perspectives on functional communication after stroke. Aphasiology, 25, 291–308.CrossRef Hesketh, A., Long, A., & Bowen, A. (2010). Agreement on outcome: Speaker, carer, and therapist perspectives on functional communication after stroke. Aphasiology, 25, 291–308.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., Tyler, D., et al. (2002). Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke, 33, 2593–2599.PubMedCrossRef Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., Tyler, D., et al. (2002). Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke, 33, 2593–2599.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Williams, L. S., Bakas, T., Brizendine, E., et al. (2006). How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients’ health-related quality of life? Stroke, 37, 2081–2085.PubMedCrossRef Williams, L. S., Bakas, T., Brizendine, E., et al. (2006). How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients’ health-related quality of life? Stroke, 37, 2081–2085.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Sneeuw, K. C., Aaronson, N. K., de Haan, R. J., et al. (1997). Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke, 28, 1541–1549.PubMedCrossRef Sneeuw, K. C., Aaronson, N. K., de Haan, R. J., et al. (1997). Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke, 28, 1541–1549.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Rautakoski, P., Korpijaakko-Huuhka, A.-M., & Klippi, A. (2008). People with severe and moderate aphasia and their partners as estimators of communicative skills: A client-centred evaluation. Aphasiology, 22, 1269–1293.CrossRef Rautakoski, P., Korpijaakko-Huuhka, A.-M., & Klippi, A. (2008). People with severe and moderate aphasia and their partners as estimators of communicative skills: A client-centred evaluation. Aphasiology, 22, 1269–1293.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Skolarus, L. E., Sanchez, B. N., Morgenstern, L. B., et al. (2010). Validity of proxies and correction for proxy use when evaluating social determinants of health in stroke patients. Stroke, 41, 510–515.PubMedCrossRef Skolarus, L. E., Sanchez, B. N., Morgenstern, L. B., et al. (2010). Validity of proxies and correction for proxy use when evaluating social determinants of health in stroke patients. Stroke, 41, 510–515.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Hula, W. D., et al. (2003). The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS): Validating patient-reported communication difficulty and associated psychological distress in stroke survivors. Aphasiology, 17, 291–304.CrossRef Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Hula, W. D., et al. (2003). The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS): Validating patient-reported communication difficulty and associated psychological distress in stroke survivors. Aphasiology, 17, 291–304.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Lomas, J., Pickard, L., Bester, S., et al. (1989). The communicative effectiveness index: Development and psychometric evaluation of a functional communication measure for adult aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 113–124.PubMed Lomas, J., Pickard, L., Bester, S., et al. (1989). The communicative effectiveness index: Development and psychometric evaluation of a functional communication measure for adult aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 113–124.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Long, A., Hesketh, A., & Bowen, A. (2011). Communication outcome after stroke: A new measure of the carer’s perspective. Clinical Rehabilitation, 23, 846–856.CrossRef Long, A., Hesketh, A., & Bowen, A. (2011). Communication outcome after stroke: A new measure of the carer’s perspective. Clinical Rehabilitation, 23, 846–856.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44, S69–S77.PubMedCrossRef Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44, S69–S77.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.CrossRef Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.CrossRef Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44, S78–S94.PubMedCrossRef Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44, S78–S94.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Baas, K. D., Cramer, A. O., Koeter, M. W., et al. (2011). Measurement invariance with respect to ethnicity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Journal of Affective Disorders, 129, 229–235.PubMedCrossRef Baas, K. D., Cramer, A. O., Koeter, M. W., et al. (2011). Measurement invariance with respect to ethnicity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Journal of Affective Disorders, 129, 229–235.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Sousa, R. M., Dewey, M. E., Acosta, D., et al. (2010). Measuring disability across cultures–the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. International Journal of Methods Psychiatric Research, 19, 1–17.CrossRef Sousa, R. M., Dewey, M. E., Acosta, D., et al. (2010). Measuring disability across cultures–the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. International Journal of Methods Psychiatric Research, 19, 1–17.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Rivera-Medina, C. L., Caraballo, J. N., Rodriguez-Cordero, E. R., et al. (2010). Factor structure of the CES-D and measurement invariance across gender for low-income Puerto Ricans in a probability sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 398–408.PubMedCrossRef Rivera-Medina, C. L., Caraballo, J. N., Rodriguez-Cordero, E. R., et al. (2010). Factor structure of the CES-D and measurement invariance across gender for low-income Puerto Ricans in a probability sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 398–408.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Heckman, B. D., Berlin, K. S., Watakakosol, R., et al. (2011). Psychosocial headache measures in Caucasian and African American headache patients: psychometric attributes and measurement invariance. Cephalalgia, 31, 222–234.PubMedCrossRef Heckman, B. D., Berlin, K. S., Watakakosol, R., et al. (2011). Psychosocial headache measures in Caucasian and African American headache patients: psychometric attributes and measurement invariance. Cephalalgia, 31, 222–234.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Coster, W. J., Haley, S. M., Ludlow, L. H., et al. (2004). Development of an applied cognition scale to measure rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 2030–2035.PubMedCrossRef Coster, W. J., Haley, S. M., Ludlow, L. H., et al. (2004). Development of an applied cognition scale to measure rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 2030–2035.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Andres, P. L., et al. (2004). Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Medical Care, 42, I49–I61.PubMedCrossRef Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Andres, P. L., et al. (2004). Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Medical Care, 42, I49–I61.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Zhang, B., Fokkema, M., Cuijpers, P., et al. (2011). Measurement invariance of the center for epidemiological studies depression scale (CES-D) among chinese and dutch elderly. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 74.PubMedCrossRef Zhang, B., Fokkema, M., Cuijpers, P., et al. (2011). Measurement invariance of the center for epidemiological studies depression scale (CES-D) among chinese and dutch elderly. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 74.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Taylor, M. L. (1965). A measurement of functional communication in aphasia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 46, 101–107.PubMed Taylor, M. L. (1965). A measurement of functional communication in aphasia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 46, 101–107.PubMed
37.
go back to reference Blomert, L., Kean, M.-L., Koster, C., et al. (1994). Amsterdam-Nijmegen everyday language test: Construction, reliability and validity. Aphasiology, 8, 381–407.CrossRef Blomert, L., Kean, M.-L., Koster, C., et al. (1994). Amsterdam-Nijmegen everyday language test: Construction, reliability and validity. Aphasiology, 8, 381–407.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Lincoln, N. B. (1982). The speech questionnaire: An assessment of functional langauge ability. International Rehabilitation Medicine, 4, 114–117.PubMed Lincoln, N. B. (1982). The speech questionnaire: An assessment of functional langauge ability. International Rehabilitation Medicine, 4, 114–117.PubMed
39.
go back to reference Holland, A. L., Frattali, C., & Fromm, D. (1999). Communication activities of daily living (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Holland, A. L., Frattali, C., & Fromm, D. (1999). Communication activities of daily living (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
40.
go back to reference Bayles, K. A., & Tomoeda, C. K. (1994). Functional linguistic communication inventory. Phoenix: Canyonlands. Bayles, K. A., & Tomoeda, C. K. (1994). Functional linguistic communication inventory. Phoenix: Canyonlands.
41.
go back to reference Frattali, C. M., Thompson, C. K., Holland, A. L., et al. (1995). The Amercian Speech-Language-Hearing Association functional assessment of communication skills for adults (ASHA FACS). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language Hearing Association. Frattali, C. M., Thompson, C. K., Holland, A. L., et al. (1995). The Amercian Speech-Language-Hearing Association functional assessment of communication skills for adults (ASHA FACS). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language Hearing Association.
42.
go back to reference Holland, A. L. (1980). Communicative activities in daily living. Baltimore: University Park Press. Holland, A. L. (1980). Communicative activities in daily living. Baltimore: University Park Press.
43.
go back to reference Wirz, S., Skinner, C., & Dean, E. (1990). Revised Edinburgh Functional Communication Profile. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders. Wirz, S., Skinner, C., & Dean, E. (1990). Revised Edinburgh Functional Communication Profile. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.
44.
go back to reference Frattali, C. M. (1992). Functional assessment of communication: Merging public policy with clinical views. Aphasiology, 6, 63–83.CrossRef Frattali, C. M. (1992). Functional assessment of communication: Merging public policy with clinical views. Aphasiology, 6, 63–83.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Le, K., et al. (2008). Measuring communicative functioning in community dwelling stroke survivors: Conceptual foundation and item development. Aphasiology, 22, 718–728.CrossRef Doyle, P. J., McNeil, M. R., Le, K., et al. (2008). Measuring communicative functioning in community dwelling stroke survivors: Conceptual foundation and item development. Aphasiology, 22, 718–728.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Bayles, K. A., & Tomoeda, C. K. (1993). Arizona Battery for Communication Disorders of Dementia. Tucson, AZ: Canyonlands Publishing, Inc. Bayles, K. A., & Tomoeda, C. K. (1993). Arizona Battery for Communication Disorders of Dementia. Tucson, AZ: Canyonlands Publishing, Inc.
47.
go back to reference Sheikh, J. I., & Yesavage, J. A. (1986). Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) Recent Evidence and Development of a Shorter Version. In T. L. Brink (Ed.), Clinical Gerontology: A Guide to Assessment and Intervention (pp. 165–173). New York: Hawthorn Press. Sheikh, J. I., & Yesavage, J. A. (1986). Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) Recent Evidence and Development of a Shorter Version. In T. L. Brink (Ed.), Clinical Gerontology: A Guide to Assessment and Intervention (pp. 165–173). New York: Hawthorn Press.
48.
go back to reference Porch, B. (2001). Porch index of communicative ability. Albuquerque, NM: PICA Programs. Porch, B. (2001). Porch index of communicative ability. Albuquerque, NM: PICA Programs.
49.
go back to reference Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus User’s Guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus User’s Guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
50.
go back to reference South, S. C., Krueger, R. F., & Iacono, W. G. (2009). Factorial Invariance of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale across Gender. Psychological Assessment, 21, 622–628.PubMedCrossRef South, S. C., Krueger, R. F., & Iacono, W. G. (2009). Factorial Invariance of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale across Gender. Psychological Assessment, 21, 622–628.PubMedCrossRef
51.
go back to reference Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307–310.PubMedCrossRef Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307–310.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference McHorney, C. A., & Fleishman, J. A. (2006). Assessing and understanding measurement equivalence in health outcome measures. Issues for further quantitative and qualitative inquiry. Medical Care, 44, S205–S210.PubMedCrossRef McHorney, C. A., & Fleishman, J. A. (2006). Assessing and understanding measurement equivalence in health outcome measures. Issues for further quantitative and qualitative inquiry. Medical Care, 44, S205–S210.PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
54.
go back to reference Doyle, P. J., Hula, W. D., McNeil, M. R., et al. (2005). An application of Rasch analysis to the measurement of communicative functioning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1412–1428.PubMedCrossRef Doyle, P. J., Hula, W. D., McNeil, M. R., et al. (2005). An application of Rasch analysis to the measurement of communicative functioning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1412–1428.PubMedCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Donovan, N. J., Rosenbek, J. C., Ketterson, T. U., et al. (2006). Adding meaning to measurement: Initial Rasch analysis of the ASHA FACS Social Communication Subtest. Aphasiology, 20, 362–373.CrossRef Donovan, N. J., Rosenbek, J. C., Ketterson, T. U., et al. (2006). Adding meaning to measurement: Initial Rasch analysis of the ASHA FACS Social Communication Subtest. Aphasiology, 20, 362–373.CrossRef
56.
go back to reference Rodriguez, A., Donovan, N. J, Velozo, C. A., et al. (2007) Measurement properties of the functional outcomes questionnaire for aphasia. Presented to the Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Clinical Aphasiology Conference. Rodriguez, A., Donovan, N. J, Velozo, C. A., et al. (2007) Measurement properties of the functional outcomes questionnaire for aphasia. Presented to the Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Clinical Aphasiology Conference.
57.
go back to reference Schuell, H., Jenkins, J. J., & Carrol, J. B. (1962). A factor analysis of the Minnesota test for the differential diagnosis of aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 350–369. Schuell, H., Jenkins, J. J., & Carrol, J. B. (1962). A factor analysis of the Minnesota test for the differential diagnosis of aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 350–369.
58.
go back to reference Clark, C., Crockett, D. J., & Klonoff, H. (1979). Factor analysis of the porch index of communication ability. Brain and Language, 7, 1–7.CrossRef Clark, C., Crockett, D. J., & Klonoff, H. (1979). Factor analysis of the porch index of communication ability. Brain and Language, 7, 1–7.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Self- and surrogate-reported communication functioning in aphasia
Auteurs
Patrick J. Doyle
William D. Hula
Shannon N. Austermann Hula
Clement A. Stone
Julie L. Wambaugh
Katherine B. Ross
James G. Schumacher
Publicatiedatum
01-06-2013
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0224-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2013

Quality of Life Research 5/2013 Naar de uitgave