Exploring the Stability of Communicative Participation and Level of Daily Speech Usage Among Individuals With Hypophonia and Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This exploratory study evaluated the test-retest stability of three participation-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) rated by individuals with Parkinson's disease (IWPD), primary communication partners (PCPs) serving as proxy raters, and control participants over three study visits spanning approximately 1 month. METHOD: Twenty-three IWPD and hypophonia, 23 PCPs, and 30 control participants attended three non-intervention experimental visits. During each visit, all participants completed three participation-based PROMs: Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), Voice Activity and Participation Profile (VAPP), and Levels of Speech Usage Scale (LSUS). Proxy ratings for each PROM were completed by PCPs. RESULTS: Results indicated significant differences between IWPD and control participants on all PROMs. IWPD exhibited lower scores on the CPIB and LSUS and higher scores on the VAPP compared to control participants. There was relative agreement in ratings between IWPD and their PCPs on all PROMs. Finally, there were relatively stable test-retest scores on all three PROMs over the three study visits, both within and between IWPD and PCPs. An exception was a statistically, but not clinically significant, decrease in CPIB scores between Visit 1 and Visit 3 for IWPD. CONCLUSIONS: This study has contributed to our understanding of the measurement properties of the CPIB, VAPP, and LSUS related to the test-retest stability of these measures over three time points in IWPD, proxy raters, and control participants. These findings provide additional context in the interpretation of participation-based PROMs in this clinical population and may prove to be useful in interpreting changes to participation-based PROM scores.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".