Article

Self- and surrogate-reported communication functioning in aphasia.

Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Quality of Life Research (Impact Factor: 2.41). 06/2012; DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0224-5
Source: PubMed

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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
144 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) (Doyle et al., 2002) is a health-status assessment instrument designed to measure patient-reported difficulty in multiple domains of functioning, psychological distress associated with specific functional limitations, and,general well-being in stroke survivors. Aims : This study was designed to examine the discriminative and concurrent validity of the BOSS Communication Difficulty (CD) and Communication-Associated Psychological Distress (CAPD) scales. A secondary purpose was to provide a preliminary examination of the relationships between the BOSS CD and CAPD scales and aspects of subjective well-being, including the frequency with which participants reported experiencing general positive and negative emotional states. Methods & Procedures : The BOSS was administered as a face-to-face interviewer-assisted survey to 281 medically stable, community-dwelling stroke survivors selected from five collaborating centres in the USA. Prior to administration of the BOSS, all subjects were rated for severity of communication impairment using the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) Severity Rating Scale (Goodglass, Kaplan, & Baressi, 2001) and were administered Subtest 8 of the Revised Token Test (RTT), (McNeil & Prescott, 1978). The discriminant validity of the BOSS CD and CAPD scales was examined by comparing scores in stroke survivors with (N = 135) and without (N = 146) communication impairment, and within the communicatively impaired sample when classified according to BDAE ratings and RTT performance. Concurrent validity of the BOSS CD and CAPD scales was examined by correlating BOSS scores with BDAE ratings and RTT performance. Finally, correlations between the BOSS CAPD, BOSS CD, Positive Mood, and Negative Mood scales were calculated. Outcomes & Results : Statistical analyses revealed significant differences between communicatively impaired and non-communicatively impaired subjects on the BOSS CD and CAPD scales, as well as significant differences between communicatively impaired subjects of differing severity levels classified both by BDAE severity ratings and RTT performance. Correlational analyses revealed moderately strong relationships among the BOSS CD scale, BDAE severity ratings, and RTT performance. Finally, correlations among the BOSS CAPD, CD, Positive Mood, and Negative Mood scales revealed true covarying relationships of moderate strength between the BOSS CAPD and CD scales, and also between the CAPD and Negative Mood Scales. Conclusions : These findings provide preliminary support for the discriminant and construct validity of the BOSS Communication Difficulty (CD) and Communication Associated Distress (CAPD) Scales, and provide an empirical rationale for further research into the relationships between functional status, patient-reported health perceptions, and subjective well-being in stroke survivors with communication disorders.
    Aphasiology 01/2003; 17(3):291-304. · 1.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although previous studies using non- elderly groups have assessed the factorial invariance of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) across different groups with the same social-cultural backgrounds, few studies have tested the factorial invariance of the CES-D across two elderly groups from countries with different social cultures. The purposes of this study were to examine the factorial structure of the CES-D, and test its measurement invariance across two different national elderly populations. A total of 6806 elderly adults from China (n = 4903) and the Netherlands (n = 1903) were included in the final sample. The CES-D was assessed in both samples. Three strategies were used in the data analysis procedure. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to determine the factor structures of the CES-D that best fitted the two samples. Second, the best fitting model was incorporated into a multi-group CFA model to test measurement invariance of the CES-D across the two population groups. Third, latent mean differences between the two groups were tested. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed: 1) in both samples, Radloff's four-factor model resulted in a significantly better fit and the four dimensions (somatic complaints, depressed affect, positive affect, and interpersonal problems) of the CES-D seem to be the most informative in assessing depressive symptoms compared to the single-, three-, and the second-order factor models; and 2) the factorial structure was invariant across the populations under study. However, only partial scalar and uniqueness invariance of the CES-D items was supported. Latent means in the partial invariant model were lower for the Dutch sample, compared to the Chinese sample. Our findings provide evidence of a valid factorial structure of the CES-D that could be applied to elderly populations from both China and the Netherlands, producing a meaningful comparison of total scores between the two elderly groups. However, for some specific factors and items, caution is required when comparing the depressive symptoms between Chinese and Dutch elderly groups.
    BMC Medical Research Methodology 01/2011; 11:74. · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purposes of this study were to compare proxy-patient responses on each domain of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) and the SIS-16, estimate the bias, and evaluate the validity of proxy scores. Two hundred eighty-seven patient and proxy pairs from the Kansas City Stroke Registry participated in the study. All patients were assessed in their home or nursing facility between 90 and 120 days after stroke with the use of the modified Rankin Scale Motricity Index (strength), Barthel Index (activities of daily living), Lawton assessment (instrumental activities of daily living), Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination (cognition), and the SIS. Eligible proxies were individuals who were aged > or =18 years, had known the patient for at least 1 year, and saw the patient at least once each week. All proxy interviews were conducted within 7 days of (before or after) the patient's interview. Three hundred seventy-seven patients from the Kansas City Stroke Registry were eligible for the study. Seventy-seven patients or proxies refused participation. Thirteen patients of the consenting patient-proxy pairs were too aphasic or cognitively impaired to complete the interviews and were dropped from the study. Proxies scored patients as more severely affected than patients scored themselves on the SIS-16 and in 7 of 8 domains of the full SIS (5 were statistically significant at alpha=0.05). The proxy bias toward overrating the severity of the patient's condition tended to increase as the severity of the stroke increased. However, the magnitude of the biases between patient and proxy means, as measured by effect size, was small (range, -0.1 to 0.4). The strength of the agreement, as measured by intraclass correlation coefficients, between proxy and patient ranged from 0.50 to 0.83. Agreement was best for the observable physical domains. Both patient and proxy scores in all domains were significantly different across Rankin categories. Concurrent validity for both patient and proxy correlations with the Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination, Barthel Index, Lawton instrumental activities of daily living, and Motricity Index was good to excellent (range, 0.37 to 0.78). Proxies provide valid information for assessment of stroke outcomes. There are significant differences between patient and proxy reporting on SIS domains and the SIS-16. However, the observed biases are small and not clinically meaningful.
    Stroke 11/2002; 33(11):2593-9. · 6.16 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
168 Downloads
Available from
Jun 2, 2014