Psychometric Properties of Standardized Instruments that are Used to Measure Pragmatic Intervention Effects in Children with Developmental Language Disorder: A Systematic Review

Pereira, T.T.; Lousada, Marisa

doi:10.1007/s10803-022-05481-7

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the bias introduced in several studies with the use of parent/teacher-rated measures highlights the need for further development around pragmatic language measurement. Instruments that capture the complex nature of social interactions are required so that researchers and clinicians can obtain unbiased measurements of pragmatic language skills for the evaluation of change following both intervention and generalisation (Jensen de López et al, 2022;Parsons et al, 2017;Pereira & Lousada, 2023).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current practices of Portuguese speech-language pathologists with preschool-age children with pragmatic impairment: A cross-sectional survey

PEREIRA,

RAMALHO,

LOUSADA

2024

J. Child Lang.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to investigate the practice patterns used by Portuguese speech-language pathologists (SLPs) with preschool-age children with pragmatic impairment and to identify the actual need(s) perceived by SLPs in this field. A total of 351 SLPs responded. The results reveal that 81.5 per cent of the respondents (n=286) reported working or had previously worked with preschool-age children with pragmatic impairment arising from autism spectrum disorder, developmental language disorder, or both. Considering the clinical practice, similarities and differences were found, many of which are due not to the inherent characteristics of each disorder but to the scarcity of research in clinical pragmatics. These results are also reflected in the needs perceived by SLPs and the degree of confidence with which they work with these children. Implications for clinical practice and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current practices of Portuguese speech-language pathologists with preschool-age children with pragmatic impairment: A cross-sectional survey

PEREIRA,

RAMALHO,

LOUSADA

2024

J. Child Lang.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews

Elsman,

Mokkink,

Abma

et al. 2024

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards. Methods One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies’ findings. Results A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use. Conclusion Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

show abstract

Competing views on interventions for pragmatic language skills in persons with pragmatic language impairment: An umbrella review

Alduais,

Bastianello,

Alduais

et al. 2023

Applied Neuropsychology: Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychometric Properties of Standardized Instruments that are Used to Measure Pragmatic Intervention Effects in Children with Developmental Language Disorder: A Systematic Review

Cited by 3 publications

References 49 publications

Current practices of Portuguese speech-language pathologists with preschool-age children with pragmatic impairment: A cross-sectional survey

Current practices of Portuguese speech-language pathologists with preschool-age children with pragmatic impairment: A cross-sectional survey

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews

Competing views on interventions for pragmatic language skills in persons with pragmatic language impairment: An umbrella review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About