Search

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures produce scores that do not always have obvious clinical meaning. The PRO-bookmarking procedure is a new and promising way to make PRO measures more meaningful and interpretable. However, the materials and procedures of the task may benefit from adaptations to be more accessible to individuals with cognitive and language disorders. Aims: This study aims to provide an overview of the iterative refinement process used to modify the materials and procedures of the PRO-bookmarking task so that they are more accessible to adults with acquired cognitive and language impairments. Method and Procedures: Our team of health psychologists, neuropsychologists, and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) conducted two focus groups with SLPs and care partners of people with aphasia using the same PRO-bookmarking materials and procedures as previous reports. These PRO-bookmarking materials and procedures were then refined iteratively based on discussion with those who participated in focus groups and among the research team, and three more times in the course of 16 additional focus groups of different stakeholders: people with Parkinson's disease, aphasia, or traumatic brain injury; care partners of people with those conditions; and SLPs who have experience with those, and other adult-acquired conditions. Outcomes and Results: The PRO-bookmarking materials and procedures underwent four iterations to make them clearer, simpler, and more accessible. For example, the materials included more structured text and graphic supports where appropriate and the procedures were clustered into smaller discrete tasks and displayed graphically when possible and appropriate. Conclusions: PRO-bookmarking materials and procedures were made simpler and more structured to increase their accessibility to adults with cognitive and language impairments. In fact, these adaptations made the tasks simpler and clearer for all types of stakeholders.

Study designThis is a focused review article.ObjectivesThis review presents important features of clinical outcomes assessments (COAs) in human spinal cord injury research. Considerations for COAs by trial phase and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health are presented as well as strengths and recommendations for upper extremity COAs for research. Clinical trial tools and designs to address recruitment challenges are identified.MethodsThe methods include a summary of topics discussed during a two-day workshop, conceptual discussion of upper extremity COAs and additional focused literature review.ResultsCOAs must be appropriate to trial phase and particularly in mid-late-phase trials, should reflect recovery vs. compensation, as well as being clinically meaningful. The impact and extent of upper vs. lower motoneuron disease should be considered, as this may affect how an individual may respond to a given therapeutic. For trials with broad inclusion criteria, the content of COAs should cover all severities and levels of SCI. Specific measures to assess upper extremity function as well as more comprehensive COAs are under development. In addition to appropriate use of COAs, methods to increase recruitment, such as adaptive trial designs and prognostic modeling to prospectively stratify heterogeneous populations into appropriate cohorts should be considered.ConclusionsWith an increasing number of clinical trials focusing on improving upper extremity function, it is essential to consider a range of factors when choosing a COA.SponsorsCraig H. Neilsen Foundation, Spinal Cord Outcomes Partnership Endeavor.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the internal consistency and construct validity of the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life Communication Item Bank (TBI-QOL COM) short form as a parent-proxy report measure. The TBI-QOL COM is a patient-reported outcome measure of functional communication originally developed as a self-report measure for adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI), but it may also be valid as a parent-proxy report measure for children who have sustained TBI. Method: One hundred twenty-nine parent-proxy raters completed the TBI-QOL COM short form 6 months postinjury as a secondary aim of a multisite study of pediatric TBI outcomes. The respondents' children with TBI were between 8 and 18 years old (M[subscript age] = 13.2 years old) at the time of injury, and the proportion of TBI severity mirrored national trends (73% complicated-mild; 27% moderate or severe). Results: The parent-proxy report version of the TBI-QOL COM displayed strong internal consistency (ordinal [alpha] = 0.93). It also displayed evidence of known-groups validity by virtue of more severe injuries associated with more abnormal scores. The instrument also showed evidence of convergent and discriminant validity by displaying a pattern of correlations with other constructs according to their conceptual relatedness to functional communication. Conclusions: This preliminary psychometric investigation of the TBI-QOL COM supports the further development of a parent report version of the instrument. Future development of the TBI-QOL COM with this population may include expanding the content of the item bank and developing calibrations specifically for parent-proxy raters.

Objective: Symptom clustering research provides a unique opportunity for understanding complex medical conditions. The objective of this study was to apply a variable-centered analytic approach to understand how symptoms may cluster together, within and across domains of functioning in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, to better understand these conditions and potential etiological, prevention, and intervention considerations. Method: Cognitive, motor, sensory, emotional, and social measures from the NIH Toolbox were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) from a dataset of 165 individuals with a research diagnosis of either amnestic MCI or dementia of the Alzheimer's type. Results: The six-factor EFA solution described here primarily replicated the intended structure of the NIH Toolbox with a few deviations, notably sensory and motor scores loading onto factors with measures of cognition, emotional, and social health. These findings suggest the presence of cross-domain symptom clusters in these populations. In particular, negative affect, stress, loneliness, and pain formed one unique symptom cluster that bridged the NIH Toolbox domains of physical, social, and emotional health. Olfaction and dexterity formed a second unique cluster with measures of executive functioning, working memory, episodic memory, and processing speed. A third novel cluster was detected for mobility, strength, and vision, which was considered to reflect a physical functioning factor. Somewhat unexpectedly, the hearing test included did not load strongly onto any factor. Conclusion: This research presents a preliminary effort to detect symptom clusters in amnestic MCI and dementia using an existing dataset of outcome measures from the NIH Toolbox. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study introduces a special series on validity studies of the Cognition Battery (CB) from the U.S. National Institutes of Health Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIHTB) (Gershon, Wagster et al., 2013) in an adult sample. This first study in the series describes the sample, each of the seven instruments in the NIHTB-CB briefly, and the general approach to data analysis. Data are provided on test-retest reliability and practice effects, and raw scores (mean, standard deviation, range) are presented for each instrument and the gold standard instruments used to measure construct validity. Accompanying papers provide details on each instrument, including information about instrument development, psychometric properties, age and education effects on performance, and convergent and discriminant construct validity. One study in the series is devoted to a factor analysis of the NIHTB-CB in adults and another describes the psychometric properties of three composite scores derived from the individual measures representing fluid and crystallized abilities and their combination. The NIHTB-CB is designed to provide a brief, comprehensive, common set of measures to allow comparisons among disparate studies and to improve scientific communication.

The List Sorting Working Memory Test was designed to assess working memory (WM) as part of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery. List Sorting is a sequencing task requiring children and adults to sort and sequence stimuli that are presented visually and auditorily. Validation data are presented for 268 participants ages 20 to 85 years. A subset of participants (N=89) was retested 7 to 21 days later. As expected, the List Sorting Test had moderately high correlations with other measures of working memory and executive functioning (convergent validity) but a low correlation with a test of receptive vocabulary (discriminant validity). Furthermore, List Sorting demonstrates expected changes over the age span and has excellent test-retest reliability. Collectively, these results provide initial support for the construct validity of the List Sorting Working Memory Measure as a measure of working memory. However, the relationship between the List Sorting Test and general executive function has yet to be determined.

This chapter focuses on the NIH Toolbox List Sorting Working Memory Test, which was developed to assess processing speed within the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB). This test is a sequencing task requiring children and adults to process stimuli (presented both visually and auditorily) and sequence the stimuli according to size. We describe the development of the NIH Toolbox List Sorting Working Memory Test, highlighting its utility in children. We examine descriptive data, test-retest reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity. Results indicated that List Sorting performance was positively correlated with age indicating that performance on the task improved throughout childhood and early adolescence. Further, test-retest reliability coefficients were high and there was support for both convergent and discriminant validity. These data suggest that the NIH Toolbox List Sorting Working Memory Test is reliable and shows evidence of construct validity.

This monograph presents the pediatric portion of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB) of the NIH Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function. The NIH Toolbox is an initiative of the Neuroscience Blueprint, a collaborative framework through which 16 NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices jointly support neuroscience-related research, to accelerate discoveries and reduce the burden of nervous system disorders. The CB is one of four modules that measure cognitive, emotional, sensory, and motor health across the lifespan. The CB is unique in its continuity across childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, and old age, and in order to help create a common currency among disparate studies, it is also available at low cost to researchers for use in large-scale longitudinal and epidemiologic studies. This chapter describes the evolution of the CB; methods for selecting cognitive subdomains and instruments; the rationale for test design; and a validation study in children and adolescents, ages 3-15 years. Subsequent chapters feature detailed discussions of each test measure and its psychometric properties (Chapters 2-6), the factor structure of the test battery (Chapter 7), the effects of age and education on composite test scores (Chapter 8), and a final summary and discussion (Chapter 9). As the chapters in this monograph demonstrate, the CB has excellent psychometric properties, and the validation study provided evidence for the increasing differentiation of cognitive abilities with age.

To identify the most important health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains and patient-reported outcomes after upper extremity transplantation (UET) in individuals with upper extremity amputation. Verbatim audio-recordings of individual interviews and focus groups were analyzed using qualitative, grounded theory-based methods to identify important domains of HRQOL and provide guidance for outcomes measurement after UET. Individual interviews were conducted by phone. Focus groups were conducted at 5 upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) centers in the US and at an international conference of VCA experts. Individual phone interviews were conducted with 5 individuals with lived experience of UET. Thirteen focus groups were conducted with a total of 59 clinical professionals involved in UET. Not applicable. Not applicable. Twenty-eight key HRQOL domains were identified, including physical functioning and medical complications, positive and negative emotional functioning, and social participation, relations, and independence. We identified key constructs for use in evaluation of the potentially substantial physical, medical, social, and emotional effects of UET. This study provides an overview of the most important issues affecting HRQOL after UET, including several topics that are unique to individuals with UET. This information will be used to establish systematic, comprehensive, and longitudinal measurement of post-UET HRQOL outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A series of recent reports have shed light on the pervasive nature of motor impairments in children with ASD (Bhat, 2020, 2021, Bhat et al., 2022), underscoring the importance of providing ASD clinicians efficient and accurate tools for motor screening. The Developmental Coordination Disorder‐Questionnaire (DCD‐Q) is a widely used motor screening tool, yet scant evidence exists regarding its psychometric properties in children with ASD. In a recent Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of the 15‐item DCD‐Q in a large sample of children with ASD (SPARK study), we found a 5‐factor latent structure that identified unique motor impairments in a large sample of children with ASD (Bhat et al., 2022). In the current study, we extend this work by cross‐replicating the EFA findings of unique ASD‐related motor issues using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in a new, more recent wave of children with ASD from the SPARK study (N = 9721). The fits and interpretability of 11 hypothesis‐driven CFA models, including 8 correlated‐factors, 1 second‐order, and 2 bifactor models were compared. Our findings supported the previous 5‐factor model with 2 gross motor subdomains, 1 fine motor domain (similar to the original DCD‐Q) and 2 general coordination subdomains. This model demonstrated acceptable fit in the new sample as well as superior fit compared to several other parsimonious correlated‐factors models. However, the second‐order and bifactor models fit slightly better and supported the presence of a general motor skills factor, although 38% of the common variance in the DCD‐Q items remained attributable to the 5 subdomains. Using one of the bifactor models, measurement invariance was also supported for DCD‐Q across sex, race, and co‐occurring conditions of language disorder and intellectual disability. Only partial invariance was supported when testing DCD‐Q scores across different age groups. These findings reveal a more complex dimensional picture of the DCD‐Q in children with ASD. Results suggest that the DCD‐Q can be used in two ways, total scores adequately assess general motor skills for brief screening and subdomain scores offer unique information on the multidimensional motor problems of children with ASD. If subdomain data are of interest, our findings call into question the practice of relying on 3 original subscales of the DCD‐Q when screening for ASD‐related motor difficulties, whereas 4 out of 5 subscale scores may better highlight domain‐specific motor problems. Future studies should continue to further validate DCD‐Q's ability to screen for multidimensional motor problems. Lay Summary: In our past work, unique motor impairments were identified in school‐age children with ASD using exploratory factor analysis of the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCD‐Q). In this paper, we cross‐replicate these findings in a new wave of children with ASD from the SPARK study using a confirmatory factor analysis approach. Children with ASD have unique multidimensional, gross and fine motor difficulties including visuomotor, multilimb coordination/planning, fine motor, and general motor competence issues. While subscale scores are specific in highlighting the different motor needs of a child, total DCD‐Q scores should be a sensitive score of motor risk. Therefore, use of the total DCD‐Q score may be sufficient for quick screening of motor problems in children with ASD in school and clinical settings, whereas 4 out of 5 subdomain scores of the DCD‐Q may better highlight domain‐specific motor problems. Future studies should continue to better understand how to best measure motor difficulties in children with ASD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]