Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:37:18.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expert Versus Proxy Rating of Verbal Communicative Ability of People with Aphasia after Stroke

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2012

Marjolein de Jong-Hagelstein ,
Lieke Kros ,
Hester F. Lingsma ,
Diederik W.J. Dippel ,
Peter J. Koudstaal  and
Evy G. Visch-Brink
Marjolein de Jong-Hagelstein*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Lieke Kros
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Hester F. Lingsma
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Diederik W.J. Dippel
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Peter J. Koudstaal
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Evy G. Visch-Brink
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Marjolein de Jong-Hagelstein, Erasmus MC, Neurology, Room EE 2291, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In randomized clinical trials of aphasia treatment, a functional outcome measure like the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT), administered by speech-language therapists, is often used. However, the agreement between this expert rating and the judgment of the proxy about the quality of the daily life communication of the person with aphasia is largely unknown. We examined the association between ANELT scores by speech-language therapists and proxy judgments on the Partner Communication Questionnaire both at 3 and 6 months in 39 people with aphasia after stroke. We also determined which factors affected the level of agreement between expert and proxy judgment of the communicative ability at 6 months in 53 people with aphasia. We found moderate agreement (at 3 months r = .662; p = < .0001 and at 6 months r = .565; p = .0001), with proxies rating slightly higher than experts. Less severe aphasia, measured with the Aphasia Severity Rating Scale, was associated with better agreement. In conclusion, although proxies were slightly more positive than experts, we found moderate agreement between expert and proxy rating of verbal communicative ability of people with aphasia after stroke, especially in milder cases. (JINS, 2012, 18, 1064–1070)

Keywords

CVA (cerebrovascular accident)AphasiaVerbal communicationJudgmentClinician ratingPartner rating
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , November 2012 , pp. 1064 - 1070
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aftonomos, L.B., Steele, R.D., Appelbaum, J.S., Harris, V.M. (2001). Relationships between impairment-level assessments and functional-level assessments in aphasia: Findings from LCC treatment programmes. Aphasiology, 15(10-11), 951–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastiaanse, R., Hurkmans, J., Links, P. (2006). The training of verb production in Broca's aphasia: A multiple-baseline across-behaviours study. Aphasiology, 20(2-4), 298–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomert, L. (1995). Who's the “expert”? Amateur and professional judgment of aphasic communication. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 2(3), 64–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blomert, L., Kean, M.L., Koster, C., Schokker, J. (1994). Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test—construction, reliability and validity. Aphasiology, 8(4), 381–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomert, L., Koster, C., Kean, M.L. (1995). Amsterdam-Nijmegen Test voor Alledaagse Taalvaardigheden. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
de Jong-Hagelstein, M., van de Sandt-Koenderman, W.M., Prins, N.D., Dippel, D.W., Koudstaal, P.J., Visch-Brink, E.G. (2011). Efficacy of early cognitive-linguistic treatment and communicative treatment in aphasia after stroke: A randomised controlled trial (RATS-2). Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry, 82, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doesborgh, S.J.C., Van De Sandt-Koenderman, M.W.E., Dippel, D.W.J., Van Harskamp, F., Koudstaal, P.J., Visch-Brink, E.G. (2004a). Effects of semantic treatment on verbal communication and linguistic processing in aphasia after stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Stroke, 35(1), 141–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doesborgh, S.J.C., van de Sandt-Koenderman, M.W.M.E., Dippel, D.W.J., van Harskamp, F., Koudstaal, P.J., Visch-Brink, E.G. (2004b). Cues on request: The efficacy of multicue, a computer program for wordfinding therapy. Aphasiology, 18(3), 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, J.M., O'flaherty, C.A., Snow, P.C. (2000). Measuring perception of communicative ability: The development and evaluation of the La Trobe communication questionnaire. Aphasiology, 14(3), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E. (1983). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Graetz, P., De Bleser, R., Willmes, K. (1991). Akense Afasie Test. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Helmick, J.W., Watamori, T.S., Palmer, J.M. (1976). Spouses’ understanding of the communication disabilities of aphasic patients. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 41(2), 238–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hesketh, A., Long, A., Bowen, A. (2011). Agreement on outcome: Speaker, carer, and therapist perspectives on functional communication after stroke. Aphasiology, 25(3), 291–308. doi:10.1080/02687038.2010.507818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilari, K., Owen, S., Farrelly, S.J. (2007). Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry, 78(10), 1072–1075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, A.L. (1980). Communicative abilities in daily living. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Lamers, L.M., Stalmeier, P.F., McDonnell, J., Krabbe, P.F., van Busschbach, J.J. (2005). [Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: The Dutch EQ-5D tariff] Kwaliteit van leven meten in economische evaluaties: het Nederlands EQ-5D-tarief. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 149(28), 1574–1578.Google Scholar
Laska, A.C., Kahan, T., Hellblom, A., Murray, V., Von Arbin, M. (2008). Design and methods of a randomized controlled trial on early speech and language therapy in patients with acute stroke and aphasia. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 15(3), 256–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laska, A.C., Von Arbin, M., Kahan, T., Hellblom, A., Murray, V. (2005). Long-term antidepressant treatment with moclobemide for aphasia in acute stroke patients: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 19(2), 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linebaugh, C.W., Young-Charles, H. (1981). Confidence in ratings of aphasic patients’ functional communication: Spouses and speech-language pathologists. Paper presented at the Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Links, P., Hurkmans, J., Bastiaanse, R. (2010). Training verb and sentence production in agrammatic Broca's aphasia. Aphasiology, 24(11), 1303–1325.CrossRefGoogle 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(1), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, A., Hesketh, A., Bowen, A. (2009). Communication outcome after stroke: A new measure of the carer's perspective. Clinical Rehabilitation, 23(9), 846–856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahoney, F.I., Barthel, D.W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61–65.Google ScholarPubMed
Manochiopinig, S., Sheard, C., Reed, V.A. (1992). Pragmatic assessment in adult aphasia: A clinical review. Aphasiology, 6(6), 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxenham, D., Sheard, C., Adams, R. (1995). Comparison of clinician and spouse perceptions of the handicap of aphasia: Everybody understands ‘understanding’. Aphasiology, 9(5), 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rautakoski, P., Korpijaakko-Huuhka, A.M., Klippi, A. (2008). People with severe and moderate aphasia and their partners as estimators of communicative skills: A client-centred evaluation. Aphasiology, 22(12), 1269–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarno, M.T. (1993). Aphasia rehabilitation: Psychosocial and ethical considerations. Aphasiology, 7(4), 321–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shewan, C.M., Cameron, H. (1984). Communication and related problems as perceived by aphasic individuals and their spouses. Journal of Communication Disorders, 17(3), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, M.L. (1965). A measurement of functional communication in aphasia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 46, 101–107.Google ScholarPubMed
The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, D., Costello, R.M. (1985). Relatives and aphasia clinicians—do they agree? Paper presented at the Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Minneapolis.Google Scholar