Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2021; 42(03): 211-224
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730906
Review Article

The Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure: Motivation, Development, Validity Evidence, and Interpretation of Change Scores

William D. Hula
1   Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
2   Department of Communication Science and Disorders, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Patrick J. Doyle
1   Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations Funding U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, 6210M, 7476W, C2386R, C4134P, C6098R and I01 RX001963
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM) is a patient-reported measure of communicative functioning developed for persons with stroke-induced aphasia. It was motivated by the desire to include the perspective of persons with aphasia in the measurement of treatment outcomes and to apply newly accessible psychometric tools to improve the quality and usefulness of available outcome measures for aphasia. The ACOM was developed within an item response theory framework, and the validity of the score estimates it provides is supported by evidence based on its content, internal structure, relationships with other variables, stability over time, and responsiveness to treatment. This article summarizes the background and motivation for the ACOM, the steps in its initial development, evidence supporting its validity as a measure of patient-reported communication functioning, and current recommendations for interpreting change scores.

Keywords

patient-reported outcomes - aphasia - item response theory


Publication History

Article published online:
14 July 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Doyle PJ, McNeil MR, Le K, Hula WD, Ventura MB. Measuring communicative functioning in community-dwelling stroke survivors: conceptual foundation and item development. Aphasiology 2008; 22 (7–8): 718-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Doyle PJ, Hula WD, Austermann Hula SN. et al. Self- and surrogate-reported communication functioning in aphasia. Qual Life Res 2013; 22 (05) 957-967
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hula WD, Doyle PJ, Stone CA. et al. The Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM): dimensionality, item bank calibration, and initial validation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58 (03) 906-919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chapey R, Duchan JF, Elman RJ. et al. Life participation approach to aphasia: a statement of values for the future. ASHA Lead 2000; 5 (03) 4-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Byng S, Duchan JF. Social model philosophies and principles: their applications to therapies for aphasia. Aphasiology 2005; 19 (10–11): 906-922
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Worrall L, Holland A. Quality of life in aphasia. Aphasiology 2003; 17 (04) 329-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cruice M, Worrall L, Hickson L, Murison R. Finding a focus for quality of life with aphasia: social and emotional health, and psychological well-being. Aphasiology 2003; 17 (04) 333-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Thompson CK, Worrall L. Approaches to aphasia treatment. In: Martin N, Thompson CK, Worrall L. eds. Aphasia Rehabilitation: The Impairment and Its Consequences. Plural Publishing; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Simmons-Mackie N. A solution to the discharge dilemma in aphasia: social approaches to aphasia management. Aphasiology 1998; 12 (03) 231-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lyon J, Cariski D, Keisler L. et al. Communication partners: enhancing participation in life and communication for adults with aphasia in natural settings. Aphasiology 1997; 11 (07) 693-708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ustün TB, Chatterji S, Bickenbach J, Kostanjsek N, Schneider M. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: a new tool for understanding disability and health. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25 (11-12): 565-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. World Health Organization; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C. et al. The voice handicap index (VHI) development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997; 6 (03) 66-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (06) 430-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 McHorney CA, Bricker DE, Kramer AE. et al. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: I. Conceptual foundation and item development. Dysphagia 2000; 15 (03) 115-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McHorney CA, Bricker DE, Robbins J, Kramer AE, Rosenbek JC, Chignell KA. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: II. Item reduction and preliminary scaling. Dysphagia 2000; 15 (03) 122-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cella D, Riley W, Stone A. et al; PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (11) 1179-1194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D. et al; PRO Harmonization Group. Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health 2003; 6 (05) 522-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ader DN. Developing the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Med Care 2007; 45 (05) S1-S2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Department of Health and Human Services. National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care: 2012 Annual Progress Report to Congress. 2012 . Accessed August 6, 2014 at: http://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/nqs/nqs2012annlrpt.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 National Quality Forum. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Performance Measurement. 2012 . Accessed November 3, 2014 at: http://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2012/12/Patient-Reported_Outcomes_in_Performance_Measurement.aspx
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rogers MA, Mullen RC. Outcomes measurement in healthcare. In: Outcomes in Speech-Language Pathology. 2nd ed.. Thieme; 2013: 91-115
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW. et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 2013; 22 (08) 1889-1905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hilari K, Byng S. Measuring quality of life in people with aphasia: the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2001; 36 (Suppl): 86-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hilari K, Wiggins R, Roy P, Byng S, Smith S. Predictors of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in people with chronic aphasia. Aphasiology 2003; 17 (04) 365-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hilari K, Byng S, Lamping DL, Smith SC. Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39): evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity. Stroke 2003; 34 (08) 1944-1950
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Doyle PJ, McNeil MR, Mikolic JM. et al. The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) provides valid and reliable score estimates of functioning and well-being in stroke survivors with and without communication disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57 (10) 997-1007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Doyle PJ, McNeil MR, Hula WD, Mikolic JM. The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS): Validating patient-reported communication difficulty and associated psychological distress in stroke survivors. Aphasiology 2003; 17 (03) 291-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Doyle PJ, McNeil MR, Bost JE. et al. The Burden of Stroke Scale (BOSS) provided valid, reliable, and responsive score estimates of functioning and well-being during the first year of recovery from stroke. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 (08) 1389-1398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Cella D, Chang C-H. Response to Hays et al and McHorney and Cohen: a discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care 2000; 38 (09) II-66-II-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hambleton RK. Response to Hays et al and McHorney and Cohen: emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med Care 2000; 38 (09) II-60-II-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000; 38 (9, Suppl): II28-II42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 De Ayala RJ. The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. 2nd ed.. Guilford Publications; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. L. Erlbaum Associates; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Embretson SE. The new rules of measurement. Psychol Assess 1996; 8 (04) 341-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Baylor C, Hula W, Donovan NJ, Doyle PJ, Kendall D, Yorkston K. An introduction to item response theory and Rasch models for speech-language pathologists. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2011; 20 (03) 243-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Fergadiotis G, Casilio M, Hula W. Computer adaptive testing for the assessment of anomia severity. Semin Speech Lang 2021; 42 (03) 180-191
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hesketh A, Hopcutt B. Outcome measures for aphasia therapy: it's not what you do, it's the way that you measure it. Eur J Disord Commun 1997; 32 (3 Spec No, S1): 189-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Doyle PJ, Hula WD, McNeil MR, Mikolic JM, Matthews C. An application of Rasch analysis to the measurement of communicative functioning. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48 (06) 1412-1428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. American Educational Research Association; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Hula WD, Doyle PJ, Austermann Hula SN. Patient-reported cognitive and communicative functioning: 1 construct or 2?. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91 (03) 400-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Coster WJ, Haley SM, Ludlow LH, Andres PL, Ni PS. Development of an applied cognition scale to measure rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85 (12) 2030-2035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL. et al. Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Med Care 2004; 42 (1, Suppl): I49-I61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Lai JS, Butt Z, Wagner L. et al. Evaluating the dimensionality of perceived cognitive function. J Pain Symptom Manage 2009; 37 (06) 982-995
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999; 30 (10) 2131-2140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke 2002; 33 (11) 2593-2599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Hilari K, Owen S, Farrelly SJ. Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007; 78 (10) 1072-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Cruice M, Worrall L, Hickson L, Murison R. Measuring quality of life: comparing family members' and friends' ratings with those of their aphasic partners. Aphasiology 2005; 19 (02) 111-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Porch BE. Porch Index of Communicative Ability. Vol 1. PICA Programs; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD. The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 (01, Suppl 1): 19-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Yang FM, Tommet D, Jones RN. Disparities in self-reported geriatric depressive symptoms due to sociodemographic differences: an extension of the bi-factor item response theory model for use in differential item functioning. J Psychiatr Res 2009; 43 (12) 1025-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Reise SP, Moore T, Maydeu-Olivares A. Target rotations and assessing the impact of model violations on the parameters of unidimensional item response theory models. Educ Psychol Meas 2011; 71 (04) 684-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hula WD, Kellough S, Doyle PJ. Reliability and validity of adaptive and static short forms of the Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure. Presentation to the Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Monterey, CA, May 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Hula WD. Item response theory-based measurement of patient-reported outcomes in aphasia. Presentation to the 14th Annual Eleanor M. Saffran Conference, Philadelphia, PA, September 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Frattali C, Thompson CK, Holland A, Wohl CB, Ferketic MM. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for Adults (ASHA-FACS). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Barresi B. Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. 3rd ed.. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Winans-Mitrik RL, Hula WD, Dickey MW, Schumacher JG, Swoyer B, Doyle PJ. Description of an intensive residential aphasia treatment program: rationale, clinical processes, and outcomes. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2014; 23 (02) S330-S342
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Swinburn K, Porter G, Howard D. Comprehensive Aphasia Test. Psychology Press; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 59 McNeil MR, Doyle PJ, Fossett TR, Park GH, Goda AJ. Reliability and concurrent validity of the information unit scoring metric for the story retelling procedure. Aphasiology 2001; 15 (10–11): 991-1006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Doyle PJ, McNeil MR, Park G. et al. Linguistic validation of four parallel forms of a story retelling procedure. Aphasiology 2000; 14 (5–6): 537-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 DeDe G, Hoover E, Maas E. Two to tango or the more the merrier? A randomized controlled trial of the effects of group size in aphasia conversation treatment on standardized tests. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (05) 1437-1451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Cho-Reyes S, Thompson CK. Verb and sentence production and comprehension in aphasia: Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS). Aphasiology 2012; 26 (10) 1250-1277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 64 Schmidt FL, Le H, Ilies R. Beyond alpha: an empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual differences constructs. Psychol Methods 2003; 8 (02) 206-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4 (01) 54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE. et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (01) 28-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59 (10) 1033-1039
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Crawford JR, Garthwaite PH. Using regression equations built from summary data in the neuropsychological assessment of the individual case. Neuropsychology 2007; 21 (05) 611-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Crawford JR, Garthwaite PH. Comparison of a single case to a control or normative sample in neuropsychology: development of a Bayesian approach. Cogn Neuropsychol 2007; 24 (04) 343-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Walker GM, Schwartz MF. Short-form Philadelphia naming test: rationale and empirical evaluation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2012; 21 (02) S140-S153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Kertesz A. Aphasia and Associated Disorders: Taxonomy, Localization, and Recovery. Holt Rinehart & Winston; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 72 Hula WD, Fergadiotis G, Swiderski AM, Silkes JP, Kellough S. Empirical evaluation of computer-adaptive alternate short forms for the assessment of anomia severity. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 63 (01) 163-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Fergadiotis G, Hula WD, Swiderski AM, Lei C-M, Kellough S. Enhancing the efficiency of confrontation naming assessment for aphasia using computer adaptive testing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (06) 1724-1738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Mittenberg W, Thompson GB, Schwartz JA. Abnormal and reliable differences among Wechsler Memory Scale—revised subtests. Psychol Assess 1991; 3 (03) 492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar