Face and Content Validation of the 10-Item Communicative Participation Item Bank General Short Form for Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Cognitive Interviewing Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the face and content validity of the 10-item Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) General Short Form for persons with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and their communication partners. Method: Nine dyads, each consisting of a person with PPA and their communication partner, completed semistructured cognitive interviews that assessed the instructions, format, response options, item comprehension, and relevance to their experiences with PPA. Interviews were conducted via videoconference. Closed-ended responses were quantified, and open-ended responses were analyzed via thematic analysis. Summaries were generated for each item, including recommended changes. Results: Measure instructions and format were clear to all participants ( N = 18, 100%). Participants demonstrated good comprehension of individual CPIB items, with a majority finding the items clear and relevant to their experiences. Most ( n = 14, 78%) participants suggested adding a fifth response option (i.e., “somewhat”) to better capture their range of communication experiences. Talking on the phone was the most reported missing communicative participation situation ( n = 12, 67%), followed by videoconference ( n = 3, 17%) and e-mail/texting ( n = 3, 17%). Conclusions: Initial data support use of the CPIB with persons with PPA and their communication partners for capturing clinically meaningful communication function. Potential modifications for sharpening the relevance, applicability, and sensitivity to longitudinal measurement of change include increasing the number of response levels, adding an item on communicative participation via phone/videochat, and using proctored administration for persons with PPA. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.30299941
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 | 0.029 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".