Search

Background: Communication of people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) is negatively affected. For PwPD with communication difficulties, it is important to use self‐assessment tools as a primary assessment approach to evaluate their perspectives on communication. It is also important to evaluate PwPDs with self‐assessment scales in order to determine in which situations their communicative effectiveness is affected and to include them in the intervention plan. Aims: To create a Turkish version of the Communicative Effectiveness Survey‐Revised (CES‐R), to examine its validity and reliability, and to investigate its applicability in PwPD. Method: The study included 106 PwPD and 106 healthy participants. The original form of the CES‐R was adapted into Turkish according to international guidelines. Every participant completed the Turkish version of CES‐R and the Voice Handicap Index‐10 form. The adapted scale was retested 2 weeks later. Outcomes and Results: Because the Kaiser‐Meyer‐Olkin coefficient was 0.956 in the exploratory factor analysis of the CES‐R and p < 0.01 for Bartlett's Test, the data set is 'perfectly' suitable for factor analysis. In the explanatory factor analysis applied in the CES‐R scale, the total explanatory ratio of the two dimensions was determined as 63.5%, and the validity condition was met. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.958 in the PwPD group and 0.955 in the control group and the scale was found to be at the 'high reliability' level. Conclusion: The CES‐R is a valid, reliable, and useable self‐assessment scale for Turkish PwPD. Furthermore, this adaptation research was developed to assess possible communication difficulties for PwPD. With this tool, difficulties in communication skills that can be identified by a comprehensive evaluation should also be studied in the intervention processes. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Self‐assessment tools are suggested as a primary use when evaluating people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) with communication difficulties. The CES‐R is one of these self‐assessment scales. However, the validity and reliability study of the Communicative Effectiveness Survey‐Revised (CES‐R) in Turkish has not been conducted. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study demonstrates the validity and reliability of the Turkish CES‐R scale and its applicability to PwPD. Furthermore, this scale can be used in assessment procedures for possible communication difficulties for PwPD. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The scale, which is unidimensional in the literature, was found to have two dimensions with eigenvalues > 1 in the Discovery Factor analysis in this study. The first dimension was named communication in general situations (CGS) and the second dimension was named communication in difficult situations (CDS). It is thought that this scale will be useful in research and clinics for the comprehensive assessment of PwPD with communication difficulties before and after treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In aphasia research, to improve a study's reliability, the aphasia journals compel their authors to report fidelity. Aphasia researchers are mostly concerned about Type I and Type II errors to maintain the level of confidence. However, the third type (Type III error) can significantly affect the study outcomes and question the research fidelity. Objective: This study explains the methodology of how investigators maintained research fidelity in the context of hiring and training remote data collectors and conducted a multi-site data collection. Methods: The present study used a descriptive analysis design to explicate the three-step process of remote data collection: (1) remotely selecting and training data collectors, (2) remotely supervising data collection and data management, and (3) optimizing and monitoring screening/assessment fidelity. At the initial step, investigators interviewed seven candidates and short-listed four of them, who were trained using a standard training protocol and participated in a mock data collection. For the next two steps, data collectors video-recorded each study session and e-shared the data with the investigator, who watched all the video-recordings and provided necessary feedback with a focus on the screening sections. The screenings were a part of the inclusion-exclusion criteria. Results: Two data collectors (both clinical psychologists) with the highest scores were selected and received final training. One-to-one e-supervision by the investigator resulted in significant improvement in data collectors' performance. Only 4% of the total collected sample size was excluded, and 99 participants' data were analyzed. Conclusion: The present study adds information on maintaining research fidelity for remote data collection, where limited studies exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We sought to examine interrater reliability in clinical assessment of apraxia of speech (AOS) in individuals with primary progressive aphasia and to identify speech characteristics predictive of AOS diagnosis. Method: Fifty-two individuals with primary progressive aphasia were recorded performing a variety of speech tasks. These recordings were viewed by 2 experienced speechlanguage pathologists, who independently rated them on the presence and severity of AOS as well as 14 associated speech characteristics. We calculated interrater reliability (percent agreement and Cohen’s kappa) for these ratings. For each rater, we used stepwise regression to identify speech characteristics significantly predictive of AOS diagnosis. We used the overlap between raters to create a more parsimonious model, which we evaluated with multiple linear regression. Results: Results yielded high agreement on the presence (90%) and severity of AOS (weighted Cohen’s κ = .834) but lower agreement for specific speech characteristics (weighted Cohen’s κ ranging from .036 to .582). Stepwise regression identified 2 speech characteristics predictive of AOS diagnosis for both raters (articulatory groping and increased errors with increased length/complexity). These alone accounted for ≥ 50% of the variance of AOS severity in the constrained model. Conclusions: Our study adds to a growing body of research that highlights the difficulty in objective clinical characterization of AOS and perceptual characterization of speech features. It further supports the need for consensus diagnostic criteria with standardized testing tools and for the identification and validation of objective markers of AOS. Additionally, these findings underscore the need for a training protocol if diagnostic tools are to be effective when shared beyond the research teams that develop and test them and disseminated to practicing speech-language pathologists, in order to ensure consistent application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]