Adaptation of The Scenario Test for Greek‐speaking people with aphasia: A reliability and validity study

Abstract

Background Evidence‐based assessments for people with aphasia (PWA) in Greek are predominantly impairment based. Functional communication (FC) is usually underreported and neglected by clinicians. This study explores the adaptation and psychometric testing of the Greek (GR) version of The Scenario Test. The test assesses the everyday FC of PWA in an interactive multimodal communication setting. Aims To determine the reliability and validity of The Scenario Test‐GR and discuss its clinical value. Methods & Procedures The Scenario Test‐GR was administered to 54 people with chronic stroke (6+ months post‐stroke): 32 PWA and 22 stroke survivors without aphasia. Participants were recruited from Greece and Cyprus. All measures were administered in an interview format. Standard psychometric criteria were applied to evaluate reliability (internal consistency, test–retest, and interrater reliability) and validity (construct and known‐groups validity) of The Scenario Test‐GR. Outcomes & Results The Scenario Test‐GR shows high levels of reliability and validity. High scores of internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95), test–retest reliability (intra‐class coefficients (ICC) = 0.99), and interrater reliability (ICC = 0.99) were found. Interrater agreement in scores on individual items ranged from good to excellent levels of agreement. Correlations with a tool measuring language function in aphasia, a measure of FC, two instruments examining the psychosocial impact of aphasia and a tool measuring non‐verbal cognitive skills revealed good convergent validity (all ps < 0.05). Results showed good known‐groups validity (Mann–Whitney U = 96.5, p < 0.001), with significantly higher scores for participants without aphasia compared with those with aphasia. Conclusions & Implications The psychometric qualities of The Scenario Test‐GR support the reliability and validity of the tool for the assessment of FC in Greek‐speaking PWA. The test can be used to assess multimodal FC, promote aphasia rehabilitation goal‐setting at the activity and participation levels, and be used as an outcome measure of everyday communication abilities.

Adaptation of the Aphasia Impact Questionnaire-21 into Greek: A Reliability and Validity Study

“…Aphasia is linked to poor functional communication outcomes [7,10], little opportunity of return to work [11,12] and reduced activities of daily living (ADL) [6,13]. A high incidence of depression is also reported, with estimates ranging between 62 and 70% and higher, for PWA compared to stroke survivors without aphasia [14].…”

“…New stroke survivors face stroke-related disabilities and a broad range of psychosocial challenges that negatively impact their quality of life (QoL) [5,6]. A main area affecting QoL is the communication difficulties experienced by stroke-induced aphasia [7]. Aphasia is an acquired communication impairment that impacts the ability of the person to speak, understand, read, write, calculate, and carry out successful everyday interactions [3].…”

The Bayesian One-sample t-Test Supersedes Correlation Analysis as a Test of Validity

“…Commonly a correlation of ρ > 0.9 or ρ < -0.9, is considered an acceptable validity cut-off in psychometry, while a correlation between 0.5 > ρ > -0.5, typically indicates very poor validity (Taherdoost, 2016; see also Charalambous, Phylactou, Kountouri, et al, 2022;Charalambous, Phylactou, Elriz, et al, 2022;Hilari et al, 2003Hilari et al, , 2018.…”

“…In this scenario, a correlation analysis between the two scales (Figure 2B), indicates an almost perfect linear relationship (Pearson's ρ = .999, BF10 = 7.30 x 10 143 ). Considering how correlations have been previously used to test validity (e.g., Charalambous, Phylactou, Kountouri, et al, 2022;Charalambous, Phylactou, Elriz, et al, 2022;Drevon et al, 2017;Hilari et al, 2018;Yaşar et al, 2021), we should assume that the scale with the systematic error is a valid measure, since the correlation is almost perfect, despite the fact that in every measure by the faulty scale there is a constant difference from the actual weight between 4.9 kg and 5.1 kg. In other words, the results from this correlation analysis are misleading and can be misinterpreted as evidence of high validity, even though the two tools provide different observations.…”

“…Such analyses concern the calculation of differences between the slopes and/or the intercepts of the observed correlations (see , for an example), compared to the expected (e.g., perfect) correlation (Figure 2C). However, such analyses are considered exploratory and are often omitted (see Charalambous, Phylactou, Kountouri, et al, 2022;Charalambous, Phylactou, Elriz, et al, 2022;Drevon et al, 2017;Hilari et al, 2018;Yaşar et al, 2021), since they do not offer the benefits of applying a simple statistical test as described above (e.g., Blanchard et al, 2018;Myung & Pitt, 1997; see also Wagenmakers et al, 2010).…”