The co-creation of the functional rating of interaction engagement needs and difficulties scale (FRIENDS) with people with aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Friendship is vital for the well-being and social integration of people with aphasia (PWA) post-stroke. The impact of chronic aphasia on the friendships and social engagement of PWA is often overlooked by rehabilitation clinicians. Aim: To co-create the Functional Rating of Interaction Engagement Needs and Difficulties Scale (FRIENDS), a self-report aphasia-friendly tool, in collaboration with PWA, and test its psychometric properties.Methods A Patient and Public Involvement approach was adopted, involving 3 PWA and a caregiver as research partners across eight co-design meetings. FRIENDS’ psychometric properties were evaluated with reliability and validity measures. The psychometric study involved 166 participants: 62 PWA, 50 people with stroke without aphasia, and 54 healthy controls.Results FRIENDS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.960) and high test – retest reliability (ICC ≥0.99). The results demonstrated a significant difference amongst the three groups (p < 0.001), which verified known-groups validity. Significant correlations between FRIENDS and measures of aphasia severity, functional communication, and quality of life supported the tool’s convergent validity. Results derived from analyzing the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) report supported its content validity.Conclusion FRIENDS is a psychometrically sound, patient-reported outcome measure, developed to rate changes in the friendships of PWA. Co-created with PWA, FRIENDS offers a broad view of chronic aphasia’s impact on friendships, aiding clinicians in co-developing functional intervention plans, enabling person-centered care, and improving the social life of PWA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".