BackgroundSeveral conditions and diseases can result in speech problems that can have a negative impact on everyday functioning, referred to as communicative participation. Subjective problems with acquired speech problems are often assessed with the speech handicap index (SHI). To assess generic participation problems, the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation–Participation (USER-P) questionnaire is frequently used. The English questionnaire Communicative Participation Item Bank—short form (CPIB short form) is a 10-item valid, reliable instrument that assesses communicative participation. In the absence of a Dutch equivalent, translation and validation of the CPIB short form was required.AimsTo translate the CPIB short form into Dutch, and to determine its psychometric properties for the group of adults with speech problems resulting from a neurological aetiology or head and neck cancer.Methods & ProceduresTranslation of the CPIB short form was performed following the instructions of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC). In a cross-sectional multi-centre study, participants completed the Dutch CPIB short form together with the SHI and USER-P, and the CPIB a second time after 2 weeks. We assessed internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the CPIB. Construct validity was assessed based on correlations with SHI, USER-P and speech assessments.Outcomes & ResultsIn the validation study, 122 participants were included: 51 with dysarthria due to different neurological disorders, 48 with speech problems due to head and neck cancer treatment and 23 healthy controls. Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.962), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for test–retest reliability was high 0.908 (95% CI = 0.870–0.935). Construct validity was supported by a strong correlation between the Dutch CPIB short form and the SHI total score (SHI total rs = 0.887) and a moderate correlation between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the USER-P subscales (USER-P Frequency rs = 0.365; USER-P restrictions and USER-P satisfaction rs = 0.546). A moderate correlation was found between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the speech performance assessments (degree of distortedness r = −0.0557; p ≤ 0.001; degree of intelligibility r = 0.0562).Conclusions & ImplicationsThe Dutch CPIB short form provides a valid and reliable tool for clinical practice and research purposes. It allows clinicians to start using this PROM in clinical and research practice to systematically investigate the impact of the speech problems on communicative participation in a Dutch-speaking population.What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectCommunicative participation allows people to take part in life situations, but can be affected by acquired speech problems. The CPIB is a patient-reported outcome measure for the assessment of this concept. For the English language the 46-item bank and a 10-item short form is available.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis paper describes the process of translation of the CPIB short form into Dutch, and confirms its reproducibility and validity.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?With this validated Dutch version of the CPIB short form available, professionals can implement this tool in clinical and research practice to systematically evaluate communicative participation.
DOCUMENT
Children with speech sound disorders (SSD) have speech disorders due to problems in articulation, phonology, execution (eg. dysarthria), planning (eg. apraxia), orofacial anomalies (eg. cleft palate) or hearing impairment (ASHA). How do children with speech sound disorders perform on language and motor (experimental) tests compared to typically developing children?
LINK
This dissertation describes a research project about the communication between communication vulnerable people and health care professionals in long-term care settings. Communication vulnerable people experience functional communication difficulties in particular situations, due to medical conditions. They experience difficulties expressing themselves or understanding professionals, and/or professionals experience difficulties understanding these clients. Dialogue conversations between clients and professionals in healthcare, which for example concern health-related goals, activity and participation choices, diagnostics, treatment options, and treatment evaluation, are, however, crucial for successful client-centred care and shared decision making. Dialogue conversations facilitate essential exchanges between clients and healthcare professionals, and both clients and professionals should play a significant role in the conversation. It is unknown how communication vulnerable people and their healthcare professionals experience dialogue conversations and what can be done to support successful communication in these conversations. The aim of this research is to explore how communication vulnerable clients and professionals experience their communication in dialogue conversations in long-term care and how they can best be supported in improving their communication in these conversations.
DOCUMENT
