PURPOSE: To assess the adequacy of self-report instruments in speech-language pathology for measuring a construct called communicative participation. METHOD: Six instruments were evaluated relative to (a) the construct measured, (b) the relevance of individual items to communicative participation, and (c) their psychometric properties. RESULTS: No instrument exclusively measured communicative participation. Twenty-six percent (n = 34) of all items (N = 132) across the reviewed instruments were consistent with communicative participation. The majority (76%) of the 34 items were associated with general communication, while the remaining 24% of the items were associated with communication at work, during leisure, or for establishing relationships. Instruments varied relative to psychometric properties. CONCLUSIONS: No existing self-report instruments in speech-language pathology were found to be solely dedicated to measuring communicative participation. Developing an instrument for measuring communicative participation is essential for meeting the requirements of our scope of practice.
PURPOSE: To assess the adequacy of self-report instruments in speech-language pathology for measuring a construct called communicative participation. METHOD: Six instruments were evaluated relative to (a) the construct measured, (b) the relevance of individual items to communicative participation, and (c) their psychometric properties. RESULTS: No instrument exclusively measured communicative participation. Twenty-six percent (n = 34) of all items (N = 132) across the reviewed instruments were consistent with communicative participation. The majority (76%) of the 34 items were associated with general communication, while the remaining 24% of the items were associated with communication at work, during leisure, or for establishing relationships. Instruments varied relative to psychometric properties. CONCLUSIONS: No existing self-report instruments in speech-language pathology were found to be solely dedicated to measuring communicative participation. Developing an instrument for measuring communicative participation is essential for meeting the requirements of our scope of practice.
Authors: Margaret Brown; Marcel P J M Dijkers; Wayne A Gordon; Teresa Ashman; Heather Charatz; Zhifen Cheng Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Patrick J Doyle; William D Hula; Malcolm R McNeil; Joseph M Mikolic; Christine Matthews Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Ingrid Riphagen; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: James H Kim; Laurel M Fisher; Lindsay Reder; Edie R Hapner; Jon-Paul Pepper Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Tanya Eadie; Mara Kapsner-Smith; Susan Bolt; Cara Sauder; Kathryn Yorkston; Carolyn Baylor Journal: Int J Lang Commun Disord Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 3.020