Evaluation and Modification of the 10‐Item Short Form Communicative Participation Item Bank for Persons with Primary Progressive Aphasia and their Communication Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a dementia syndrome characterized by language and communication impairments, with relative sparing of other cognitive domains. As a relatively rare dementia syndrome, there are few measures developed and validated for individuals with PPA. Development of outcome measures tailored to the communication experiences of persons with PPA (PwPPA) is critical for the accurate assessment of interventions success. The 10‐item Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) has been used as a measure for communication participation in PPA. However, the CPIB was validated as a disorder‐agnostic measure and its content validity for PPA has not been evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the face and content validity of the 10‐item CPIB for PwPPA and their communication partners (CP). Method Cognitive interviews were conducted with participants (N = 12) who had previously completed the CPIB during the Communication Bridge 2 randomized controlled trial (NCT03371706) and with four participants unfamiliar with the CPIB. PwPPAs and CPs completed the CPIB during a semi‐structured interview assessing measure format, instructions, response options, item comprehension, and item relevance. To evaluate content validity, participants were asked open‐ended questions to elicit relevant communication participation experiences missing from the questionnaire. Closed‐ended responses (e.g., clarity, relevance) were tabulated, and open‐ended responses (e.g., item comprehension, missing content) were thematically analyzed. Summaries of measure format, instructions, and response options were generated, as well as item‐level findings regarding comprehension, relevance, and missing content. Result Both PwPPAs and CPs: a) considered the instructions to be clear (n = 16, 100%); b) recommended adding a fifth response option (e.g., “Somewhat; n = 11) to better represent the range of communication situations; c) reported all items except one (“persuade…to see a different point of view”) were relevant (n≥13; ≥81%, for 9 items); and d) talking on the phone was the most reported missing communicative participation situation (n = 12; 75%). Further, 3 participants reported talking over videochat, and 4 participants reported email/texting as missing. Results were similar between CPIB‐experienced and CPIB‐naïve participants. Conclusion Findings indicate that modifications to the 10‐item CPIB short form may be needed for use with PwPPA and their CPs to more fulsomely capture communication participation in PPA.
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 | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".