Many ways of measuring: a scoping review of measurement instruments for use with people with aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.091 | 0.286 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".