ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
No AccessAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologyResearch Article1 Nov 2008

The Communicative Effectiveness Survey: Preliminary Evidence of Construct Validity

    https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/07-0010)

    Abstract

    Purpose

    To provide preliminary evidence of the construct validity of the Communicative Effectiveness Survey (CES) for individuals with dysarthria and idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD).

    Method

    In a prospective, quasi-experimental design, 25 participants each were assigned to 3 groups (N = 75): PD and dysarthria, non-PD and no dysarthria, and PD significant others (SOs). Mean CES ratings were used to test for significant differences between the PD and non-PD group, and PD and SO rating of PD’s communicative effectiveness. Multiple linear regression tested for significant predictors of CES ratings for PD group only using sentence intelligibility and spontaneous speech intelligibility scores as predictor variables.

    Results

    The PD group rated their CES significantly lower than did the non-PD group. The PD group rated their CES significantly higher than their SOs rated them. Neither speech intelligibility score was a significant predictor of CES ratings. In follow-up analysis, the Hoehn and Yahr PD staging accounted for 47% of the variability in CES ratings for the PD group participants.

    Conclusions

    This study provides preliminary evidence of the CES’s construct validity. Clinicians and researchers who assess and treat individuals with PD may consider adding an additional assessment to the traditional clinical measures (i.e., speech intelligibility) by obtaining a measure of communicative effectiveness.

    References

    • Abbruzzese, G., & Berardelli, A. (2003). Sensorimotor integration in movement disorders.Movement Disorders, 18, 231–240.
      Google Scholar
    • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Scope of practice in speech-language pathology. Available from www.asha.org/policy
      Google Scholar
    • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Preferred practice patterns for the profession of speech-language pathology. Available from www.asha.org/policy
      Google Scholar
    • Andresen, E., Vahle, V., & Lollar, D. (2001). Proxy reliability: Health-related quality of life measures for people with disability.Quality of Life Research, 10, 609–619.
      Google Scholar
    • Antonius, K., Beukelman, D. R., & Reid, R. (1995). Communication disability of Parkinson’s disease.In D. A. Robin, K. M. Yorkston, & D. R. Beukelman (Eds.), Disorders of motor speech: Recent advances in assessment, treatment, and clinical characterization (pp. 2275–2286). Baltimore: Brookes.
      Google Scholar
    • Arpinelli, F., & Bamfi, F. (2006). The FDA guidance for industry on PROs: The point of view of a pharmaceutical company.Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 85.
      Google Scholar
    • Ball, L. J., Beukelman, D. R., & Pattee, G. L. (2004). Communication effectiveness of individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Journal of Communication Disorders, 37, 197–215.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Baylor, C. R., Yorkston, K. M., Eadie, T., Miller, R. M., & Amtmann, D. (2008). Developing the Communication Participation Item Bank: Rasch analysis results from a spasmodic dysphonia sample. Manuscript submitted for publication.
      Google Scholar
    • Beukelman, D. R., Mathy, P., & Yorkston, K. M. (1998). Outcomes measurement in motor speech disorders.In C. M. Frattali (Ed.), Measuring outcomes in speech-language pathology (pp. 334–353). New York: Thieme.
      Google Scholar
    • Bickenbach, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badely, E. M., & Ustun, T. B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps.Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1173–1187.
      Google Scholar
    • Bodis-Wollner, I. (2003). Neuropsychological and perceptual defects in Parkinson’s disease.Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, 9, S83–S89.
      Google Scholar
    • Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Brandt, E. N., Jr, & Pope, A. M. (1997). Models of disability and rehabilitation.In E. N. Brandt, & A. M. Pope (Eds.), Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering (pp. 24–39). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
      Google Scholar
    • Donabedian, A. (1980). Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring: An illustrated analysis. Volume 3. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Donovan, N. J., Velozo, C. A., & Rosenbek, J. C. (2007). The Communicative Effectiveness Survey: Investigating its item-level psychometric properties.Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology, 15, 433–447.
      Google Scholar
    • Donovan, N. J., Velozo, C. A., Rosenbek, J. C., Okun, M. S., & Sapienza, C. M. (2005). Developing a measure of communicative effectiveness for individuals with Parkinson’s disease [Abstract].Movement Disorders, 20(S10), 92.
      Google Scholar
    • Duffy, J. R. (2004). Dysarthrias: Characteristics and classification.In R. D. Kent (Ed.), The MIT encyclopedia of communication disorders (pp. 126–127). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Duncan, P., Lai, S., Tyler, D., Perera, S., Reker, D., & Studenski, S. (2002). Evaluation of proxy responses to the stroke impact scale.Stroke, 33, 2593–2599.
      Google Scholar
    • Eadie, T. L., Yorkston, K. M., Klasner, E. R., Dudgeon, B. J., Deitz, J. C., & Baylor, C. R. (2006). Measuring communicative participation: A review of self-report instruments in speech-language pathology.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 307–320.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Faul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1996). G*Power: A general power analysis program.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11.
      Google Scholar
    • Ferreri, F., Agbokou, C., & Gauthier, S. (2006). Recognition and management of neuropsychiatric complications in Parkinson’s disease.Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175, 1545–1552.
      Google Scholar
    • Fleming, A., Cook, K. F., Nelson, N. D., & Lai, E. C. (2005). Proxy reports in Parkinson’s disease: Caregiver and patient self-reports of quality of life and physical activity.Movement Disorders, 20, 1462–1468.
      Google Scholar
    • Frattali, C. M. (1998). Outcomes measurement: Definitions, dimensions, and perspectives.In C. M. Frattali (Ed.), Measuring outcomes in speech-language pathology (pp. 1–27). New York: Thieme.
      Google Scholar
    • Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., Bjorner, J. B., & Rose, M. (2007). More relevant, precise, and efficient items for assessment of physical function and disability: Moving beyond the classic instruments.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 65(SIII), iii16–iii21.
      Google Scholar
    • Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Fall. 38–47.
      Google Scholar
    • Ho, A. K., Bradshaw, J. L., Iansek, R., & Alfredson, R. (1999). Speech volume regulation in Parkinson’s disease: Effects of implicit cues and explicit instructions.Neuropsychologia, 37, 1453–1460.
      Google Scholar
    • Hoehn, M. M., & Yahr, M. D. (1967). Parkinsonism: Onset, progression, and mortality.Neurology, 17, 427–442.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Hustad, K. C. (1999). Optimizing communicative effectiveness: Bringing it together.In K. Yorkston, D. Beukelman, E. A. Strand, & K. R. Bell (Eds.), Management of motor speech disorders in children and adults (pp. 483–537). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Hustad, K. C., & Beukelman, D. R. (2001). Effects of linguistic cues and stimulus cohesion on intelligibility of severely dysarthric speech.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 497–512.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Hustad, K. C., & Beukelman, D. (2002). Listener comprehension of severely dysarthric speech: Effects of linguistic cues and stimulus cohesion.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 545–558.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Hustad, K. C., & Cahill, M. A. (2003). Effects of presentation mode and repeated familiarization on intelligibility of dysarthric speech.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 198–206.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Iezzoni, L. I. (1994). Risk adjustment for measuring health care outcomes. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Jette, A. M. (2003). Assessing disability in studies on physical activity.American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 25(3)122–128.
      Google Scholar
    • Jette, A. M., & Haley, S. M. (2005). Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment.Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37, 339–345.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Kempler, D., & Van Lancker, D. (2002). Effect of speech task on intelligibility in dysarthria: A case study of Parkinson’s disease.Brain and Language, 80, 449–464.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Lauterbach, E. C. (2005). The neuropsychiatry of Parkinson’s disease.Minerva Medica, 96(3)155–173.
      Google Scholar
    • Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability.Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4)328.
      Google Scholar
    • Lomas, J., Pickard, L., Bester, S., Elbard, H., Finlayson, A., & Zoghaib, C. (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.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Marin, R. S. (1990). Differential diagnosis and classification of apathy.American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 22–30.
      Google Scholar
    • Müller, J., Wenning, G. K., Verny, N., McKee, A., Chaudhuri, K. R., Jellinger, K., Poewe, W., et al. (2001). Progression of dysarthria and dysphagia in postmortem confirmed parkinsonian disorders.Archives of Neurology, 58, 259–264.
      Google Scholar
    • Parkinson’s Disease Society2007.Retrieved December 1, 2007, from www.parkinsons.org.uk.
      Google Scholar
    • Prieto, L. (2003). Classical test theory versus rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction.Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 27.
      Google Scholar
    • Ruben, R. J. (2000). Redefining the survival of the fittest: Communication disorders in the 21st century.The Laryngoscope, 110, 241–245.
      Google Scholar
    • Schrag, A., Jahanshahi, M., & Quinn, N. (2000). What contributes to quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease?.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 69, 308–312.
      Google Scholar
    • Schwab, R. S., & England, A. C. (1969). Projection technique for evaluating surgery in Parkinson’s disease.In F. J. Gillingharn, & I. M. L. Donaldson (Eds.), Third Symposium on Parkinson’s Disease (pp. 152–157). Edinburgh, Scotland: Livingstone.
      Google Scholar
    • Segal, M., & Schall, R. (1994). Determining functional/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors.Stroke, 25, 2391–2397.
      Google Scholar
    • Sneeuw, K., Aaronson, N., deHaan, R. J., & Limburg, M. (1997). Assessing quality of life after stroke: The value and limitations of proxy ratings.Stroke, 28, 1541–1549.
      Google Scholar
    • Solomon, N. P., Robin, D. A., & Luschei, E. S. (2000). Strength, endurance and stability of the tongue and hand in PD.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 256–267.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Starkstein, S. E., Mayberg, H. S., Preziosi, T. J., Andrezejewski, P., Leiguarda, R., & Robinson, R. G. (1992). Reliability, validity, and clinical correlates of apathy in Parkinson’s disease.Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 4, 134–139.
      Google Scholar
    • U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
      Google Scholar
    • Velozo, C. A., & Peterson, E. W. (2001). Developing meaningful fear of falling measures for community dwelling elderly.American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 662–673.
      Google Scholar
    • Weismer, G., & Laures, J. S. (2002). Direct magnitude estimates of speech intelligibility in dysarthria: Effects of a chosen standard.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 421–433.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Willke, R. J., Burke, L. B., & Erickson, P. (2004). Measuring treatment impact: A review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels.Controlled Clinical Trials, 25, 535–552.
      Google Scholar
    • World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
      Google Scholar
    • Wright, B. D. (1997). A history of social science measurement.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4)33–45.
      Google Scholar
    • Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (2003). Five steps to science: Observing, scoring, measuring, analyzing, and applying.Rasch Measurement Transactions, 17, 912–913.
      Google Scholar
    • Yorkston, K. M. (1996). Treatment efficacy: Dysarthria.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, S46–S57.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Yorkston, K. M., Baylor, C. R., Klasner, E. R., Deitz, J., Dudgeon, B. J., & Eadie, T. L. (2007). Satisfaction with communicative participation as defined by adults with multiple sclerosis: A qualitative study.Journal of Communication Disorders, 40, 433–451.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1981a). Assessment of intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Tigard, OR: CC Publications.
      Google Scholar
    • Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1981b). Communication efficiency of dysarthric speakers as measured by sentence intelligibility and speaking rate.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 296–301.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • K. M. Yorkston, D. R. Beukelman, E. A. Strand, & K. R. Bell (Eds.), 1999). Management of motor speech disorders in children and adults. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Yorkston, K. M., Beukelman, D. R., & Traynor, C. D. (1984). Assessment of intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Yorkston, K. M., Bombardier, C., & Hammen, V. L. (1994). Dysarthria from the viewpoint of individuals with dysarthria.In J. A. Till, K. M. Yorkston, & D. R. Beukelman (Eds.), Motor speech disorders: Advances in assessment and treatment (pp. 19–36). Baltimore: Brookes.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources