Developing a scale of communicative participation: A cognitive interviewing study

Abstract

Problems identified related to candidate items included inadequate context, double-barreled or ambiguous items, redundancy, unclear or generally confusing items, infrequent situations, and cultural sensitivity. Participants preferred response options that asked them to rate interference rather than other dimensions such as satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS; Subtle differences in items and response options make key differences in how participants interpret and make decisions about their responses. Rich contextual information is needed in order to respond to items that sample communicative participation. Participants preferred response options that capture the barriers that they experience when participating in everyday communication situations.

Exploring the Relevance of Items in the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) for Individuals With Hearing Loss

“…These diagnostic groups included Parkinson's disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis, head and neck cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and spasmodic dysphonia (Baylor et al, 2011;Yorkston et al, 2008). Although several participants included in these prior studies did have hearing loss in addition to a speech or language disorder, the primary focus in these prior interviews was the impact of the speech or language impairment on communicative participation.…”

“…The CPIB is a patient-reported instrument designed to measure the extent to which communication disorders interfere with participation in a wide range of daily conversational situations (Baylor et al, 2013;Baylor, Yorkston, Eadie, Miller, & Amtmann, 2009;Yorkston et al, 2008). One of the guiding principles in the development of the CPIB was that it would be a unidimensional instrument focusing on the construct of communicative participation.…”

“…Cognitive interviews explore not only the item stems but also structural aspects of the items, such as the response options, providing opportunities to observe if respondents interpret the response options as intended by the developers, if respondents find the range of response options applicable to reflect the range of their experiences, and if respondents feel that their perspectives are reflected in the response options provided. Through these cognitive interviewing methods, instrument developers are able to improve the likelihood that the items indeed target the construct of interest and will be received as relevant, accessible, and acceptable to the target population.The CPIB underwent prior cognitive interviewing examination with 44 individuals representing different populations of speech and language disorders (Baylor, Burns, Eadie, Britton, & Yorkston, 2011;Yorkston et al, 2008). These diagnostic groups included Parkinson's disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis, head and neck cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and spasmodic dysphonia (Baylor et al, 2011;Yorkston et al, 2008).…”

“…The CPIB underwent prior cognitive interviewing examination with 44 individuals representing different populations of speech and language disorders (Baylor, Burns, Eadie, Britton, & Yorkston, 2011;Yorkston et al, 2008). These diagnostic groups included Parkinson's disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis, head and neck cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and spasmodic dysphonia (Baylor et al, 2011;Yorkston et al, 2008).…”

“…Many surveys do not ask about a wide range of environments and situations in which participation in communication occurs, thus giving only a partial window into participation restrictions associated with hearing loss. Last, although many patient-reported outcomes in audiology exist, few are used consistently between studies or clinicians, indicating a lack of consensus in the field as to which ones are most important (Granberg, Dahlström, Möller, Kähäri, & Danermark, 2014).The CPIB is a patient-reported instrument designed to measure the extent to which communication disorders interfere with participation in a wide range of daily conversational situations (Baylor et al, 2013;Baylor, Yorkston, Eadie, Miller, & Amtmann, 2009;Yorkston et al, 2008). One of the guiding principles in the development of the CPIB was that it would be a unidimensional instrument focusing on the construct of communicative participation.…”