Many ways of measuring: a scoping review of measurement instruments for use with people with aphasia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background In clinical practice and in research, aphasia measurement instruments are used for many reasons: to screen and diagnose, to identify deficits and strengths, and to measure outcomes. A proliferation in available measurement instruments presents challenges to both the aphasia clinician and researcher and forms a barrier to optimal practice. There is a need for a comprehensive review of measurement instruments to identify the diversity of constructs measured by available tools and their cultural and linguistic applicability to the international aphasia community.Aims (1) To identify all available standardised measurement instruments which have been developed or tested with people with aphasia; and (2) To describe the construct/s measured, method of report, structure (components and scoring system), and availability of cultural/linguistic adaptations, of identified instruments.Methods and Procedures This scoping review is reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies were identified through searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. Secondary searches of individual measurement instruments and hand searching were also undertaken. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Inclusion criteria: studies reporting psychometric properties of measurement instruments, participants with aphasia (or their proxies), English language full-text journal articles. Data extracted: purpose, structure, and method of report of each instrument. The construct(s) reported to be measured by each instrument was classified according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).Outcomes and Results A total of 3642 articles were identified through database searches. Following the removal of duplicates, 2879 articles were screened by title and abstract; with 334 articles undergoing full-text review. Secondary searches of individual measurement instruments and hand searching identified a further 99 publications. In total, 284 references for 143 measurement instruments were included in this review. Measurement instruments were classified by ICF component; the majority were reported to be measures of Body Functions (n = 94); followed by Activity/Participation (n = 23); Environmental Factors (n = 5); and quality of life/other constructs not within the ICF (n = 16). Five measured multiple ICF components.Conclusions and Implications This review identified 143 measurement instruments, developed or tested with people with aphasia. Classified according to the ICF, these instruments primarily measure Body Functions (n = 94). Some measurement instruments have undergone extensive cultural and linguistic translation/adaptation, however most have not. The resulting corpus of instruments provides a basis for the selection of measurement instruments in clinical and research settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,091 | 0,286 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,040 | 0,040 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».