Semin Speech Lang 2021; 42(03): 225-239
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729947
Review Article

The Communicative Participation Item Bank: Evaluating, and Reevaluating, Its Use across Communication Disorders in Adults

Carolyn Baylor
1   Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
,
Tanya Eadie
2   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
,
Kathryn Yorkston
1   Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
› Author Affiliations
Funding The authors gratefully acknowledge funding that has supported past and ongoing work related to the CPIB including the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (PI: K.Y.), the National Institute for Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (1R03DC010044, PI: C.B., and R01DC012510, PI: C.B.), the National Cancer Institute (1R03CA132525, PI: T.E., and 1R01CA177635, PI: T.E.), the American Speech-Language, Hearing Foundation (Clinical Research Grant, PI: C.B.), the Cure Dystonia Now Foundation and the National Spasmodic Dysphonia Association, and the University of Washington (Royalty Research Fund Grant, PI: C.B.). The authors thank Cait Brown, MS, CCC-SLP, for assistance with the preparation of this manuscript.

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential in patient-centered, evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology. PROs respect individuals who live with communication disorders as key stakeholders providing a critically unique perspective on consequences of communication disorders, and whether interventions bring about meaningful changes. Some PROs focus on specific communication symptoms such as voice or language symptom severity, while others focus on broader constructs such as quality of life. Many PROs target specific diagnostic groups. This article presents the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), a PRO that measures communicative participation restrictions. The CPIB was based on the concept of participation, or engagement in life situations, as defined in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. It was designed to be relevant for adults across different communication disorders to facilitate clinical and research activities that may involve either comparing or aggregating data across communication disorders. The CPIB follows current PRO development protocols including systematic guidance from stakeholders through cognitive interviews, and the measurement methods of Item Response Theory that allow precise and adaptive assessment. This article reviews use of the CPIB across different diagnostic groups, and identifies needs for future efforts to expand the relevance of the CPIB further.



Publication History

Article published online:
14 July 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 
  • References

  • 1 Cohen ML, Hula WD. Patient-reported outcomes and evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2020; 29 (01) 357-370
  • 2 Yorkston K, Baylor C. Patient-reported outcomes measures: an introduction for clinicians. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups 2019; 4 (01) 8-15
  • 3 Bellon-Harn ML, Azios JH, Dockens AL, Manchaiah V. Speech-language pathologists' preferences for patient-centeredness. J Commun Disord 2017; 68: 81-88
  • 4 DiLollo A, Favreau C. Person-centered care and speech and language therapy. Semin Speech Lang 2010; 31 (02) 90-97
  • 5 O'Halloran R, Hersh D, Laplante-Lévesque A, Worrall L. Person-centeredness, ethics, and stories of risk. Semin Speech Lang 2010; 31 (02) 81-89
  • 6 de Riesthal M, Ross K. Patient reported outcome measures in neurologic communication disorders: an update. Perspect Neurophysiol Neurogenic Speech Lang Disord 2015; 25 (03) 114-120
  • 7 Irwin B. Patient-reported outcome measures in aphasia. Perspect Neurophysiol Neurogenic Speech Lang Disord 2012; 22 (04) 160-166
  • 8 Donovan N. Patient-reported outcomes for acquired dysarthria. Perspect Neurophysiol Neurogenic Speech Lang Disord 2012; 22 (04) 152-159
  • 9 Francis DO, Daniero JJ, Hovis KL. et al. Voice-related patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of instrument development and validation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (01) 62-88
  • 10 Franic DM, Bramlett RE, Bothe AC. Psychometric evaluation of disease specific quality of life instruments in voice disorders. J Voice 2005; 19 (02) 300-315
  • 11 Speyer R, Kim JH, Doma K. et al. Measurement properties of self-report questionnaires on health-related quality of life and functional health status in dysphonia: a systematic review using the COSMIN taxonomy. Qual Life Res 2019; 28 (02) 283-296
  • 12 Franic DM, Bothe AK. Psychometric evaluation of condition-specific instruments used to assess health-related quality of life, attitudes, and related constructs in stuttering. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2008; 17 (01) 60-80
  • 13 Yaruss JS. Assessing quality of life in stuttering treatment outcomes research. J Fluency Disord 2010; 35 (03) 190-202
  • 14 Zraick RI, Atcherson SR, Brown AM. Readability of patient-reported outcome questionnaires for use with persons who stutter. J Fluency Disord 2012; 37 (01) 20-24
  • 15 Baylor C, Yorkston K, Eadie T, Kim J, Chung H, Amtmann D. The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB): item bank calibration and development of a disorder-generic short form. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (04) 1190-1208
  • 16 Jin JL, Baylor C, Yorkston K. Predicting communicative participation in adults across communication disorders. Am J Speech-Language Pathol DOI: 10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00100.
  • 17 Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N. et al; PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007; 45 (05, Suppl 1): S3-S11
  • 18 Hill CD, Edwards MC, Thissen D. et al. Practical issues in the application of item response theory: a demonstration using items from the pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 generic core scales. Med Care 2007; 45 (05, Suppl 1): S39-S47
  • 19 DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA. PROMIS Cooperative Group. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care 2007; 45 (05, Suppl 1): S12-S21
  • 20 Beatty P, Willis GB. Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin Q 2007; 71 (02) 287-311
  • 21 Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Sage Publications, Inc.; 2005
  • 22 Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB. et al; PROMIS Cooperative Group. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 2007; 45 (05, Suppl 1): S22-S31
  • 23 Fries JF, Bruce B, Cella D. The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005; 23 (05, Suppl 39): S53-S57
  • 24 World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. World Health Organization; 2001
  • 25 Eadie TL, Yorkston KM, Klasner ER. et al. Measuring communicative participation: a review of self-report instruments in speech-language pathology. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2006; 15 (04) 307-320
  • 26 Torrence JM, Baylor CR, Yorkston KM, Spencer KA. Addressing communicative participation in treatment planning for adults: a survey of US speech-language pathologists. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2016; 25 (03) 355-370
  • 27 Collis J, Bloch S. Survey of UK speech and language therapists' assessment and treatment practices for people with progressive dysarthria. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2012; 47 (06) 725-737
  • 28 Miller N, Deane KH, Jones D, Noble E, Gibb C. National survey of speech and language therapy provision for people with Parkinson's disease in the United Kingdom: therapists' practices. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2011; 46 (02) 189-201
  • 29 Verna A, Davidson B, Rose T. Speech-language pathology services for people with aphasia: a survey of current practice in Australia. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2009; 11 (03) 191-205
  • 30 Baylor C, Darling-White M. Achieving participation-focused intervention through shared decision-making: proposal of an age- and disorder-generic framework. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2020; 29 (03) 1335-1360
  • 31 Baylor C, Burns M, Eadie T, Britton D, Yorkston K. A qualitative study of interference with communicative participation across communication disorders in adults. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2011; 20 (04) 269-287
  • 32 Yorkston K, Baylor C, Britton D. Speech versus speaking: the experiences of people with Parkinson's disease and implications for intervention. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2017; 26 (2S): 561-568
  • 33 Bothe AK, Richardson JD. Statistical, practical, clinical, and personal significance: definitions and applications in speech-language pathology. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2011; 20 (03) 233-242
  • 34 Yorkston KM, Baylor CR, Dietz J. et al. Developing a scale of communicative participation: a cognitive interviewing study. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30 (06) 425-433
  • 35 Miller CW, Baylor CR, Birch K, Yorkston KM. Exploring the relevance of items on the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) for listeners with hearing loss. Am J Audiol 2017; 26 (01) 27-37
  • 36 Hambleton RK, Jones RW. Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educ Meas Issues Pract 1993; 12 (03) 38-47
  • 37 Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning; 1986
  • 38 De Champlain AF. A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education. Med Educ 2010; 44 (01) 109-117
  • 39 Ware JE, Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, Bjorner JB. Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol 2005; 50 (01) 71-78
  • 40 Baylor C, Hula W, Donovan NJ, Doyle PJ, Kendall D, Yorkston K. An introduction to item response theory and Rasch models for speech-language pathologists. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2011; 20 (03) 243-259
  • 41 Embretson S, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 2000
  • 42 Ware Jr JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB. et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res 2003; 12 (08) 935-952
  • 43 Cook KF, O'Malley KJ, Roddey TS. Dynamic assessment of health outcomes: time to let the CAT out of the bag?. Health Serv Res 2005; 40 (5, Pt 2; 5, Part II): 1694-1711
  • 44 Doyle PJ, Hula WD, McNeil MR, Mikolic JM, Matthews C. An application of Rasch analysis to the measurement of communicative functioning. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48 (06) 1412-1428
  • 45 Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41 (05) 582-592
  • 46 McAuliffe MJ, Baylor CR, Yorkston KM. Variables associated with communicative participation in Parkinson's disease and its relationship to measures of health-related quality-of-life. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2017; 19 (04) 407-417
  • 47 Spencer K, Clare F, Katherine AB. Predictors of health-related quality of life and communicative participation in individuals with dysarthria from Parkinson's disease. Int J Neurodegener Disord 2020; 3 (01) DOI: 10.23937/2643-4539/1710014.
  • 48 Barnish MS, Horton SMC, Butterfint ZR, Clark AB, Atkinson RA, Deane KHO. Speech and communication in Parkinson's disease: a cross-sectional exploratory study in the UK. BMJ Open 2017; 7 (05) e014642
  • 49 Bryans LA, Palmer AD, Anderson S, Schindler J, Graville DJ. The impact of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®) on voice, communication, and participation: Findings from a prospective, longitudinal study. J Commun Disord 2021; 89: 106031
  • 50 Miller N, Andrew S, Noble E, Walshe M. Changing perceptions of self as a communicator in Parkinson's disease: a longitudinal follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33 (03) 204-210
  • 51 Walshe M, Miller N. Living with acquired dysarthria: the speaker's perspective. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33 (03) 195-203
  • 52 Miller N, Noble E, Jones D, Burn D. Life with communication changes in Parkinson's disease. Age Ageing 2006; 35 (03) 235-239
  • 53 Baylor C, Yorkston K, Bamer A, Britton D, Amtmann D. Variables associated with communicative participation in people with multiple sclerosis: a regression analysis. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2010; 19 (02) 143-153
  • 54 Baylor C, Amtmann D, Yorkston KM. A longitudinal study of communicative participation in individuals with multiple sclerosis: latent classes and predictors. J Med Speech-Lang Pathol 2012; 20 (04) 12-17
  • 55 Yorkston KM, Baylor C, Amtmann D. Communicative participation restrictions in multiple sclerosis: associated variables and correlation with social functioning. J Commun Disord 2014; 52: 196-206
  • 56 El-Wahsh S, Bogaardt H, Kumfor F, Ballard K. Development and validation of the communication and language assessment questionnaire for persons with multiple sclerosis (CLAMS). Mult Scler Relat Disord 2020; 43: 102206
  • 57 Feenaughty L, Tjaden K, Weinstock-Guttman B, Benedict RHB. Separate and combined influence of cognitive impairment and dysarthria on functional communication in multiple sclerosis. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2018; 27 (03) 1051-1065
  • 58 Yorkston KM, Baylor CR, Klasner ER. et al. Satisfaction with communicative participation as defined by adults with multiple sclerosis: a qualitative study. J Commun Disord 2007; 40 (06) 433-451
  • 59 Yorkston K, Klasner ER, Swanson KM. Communication in context: a qualitative study of the experiences of individuals with multiple sclerosis. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2001; 10: 126-137
  • 60 Baylor C, Oelke M, Bamer A. et al. Validating the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) for use with people with aphasia: an analysis of differential item function (DIF). Aphasiology 2017; 31 (08) 861-878
  • 61 Kertesz A. Western aphasia battery-revised (WAB-R). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2006
  • 62 Utianski RL, Clark HM, Duffy JR, Botha H, Whitwell JL, Josephs KA. Communication limitations in patients with progressive apraxia of speech and aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2020; 29 (04) 1976-1986
  • 63 Northcott S, Burns K, Simpson A, Hilari K. “Living with aphasia the best way I can:” a feasibility study exploring solution focused brief therapy for people with aphasia. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2015; 67 (03) 156-167
  • 64 Bislick L. A phonomotor approach to apraxia of speech treatment. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2020; 29 (04) 2109-2130
  • 65 Dalemans R, Wade DT, van den Heuvel WJ, de Witte LP. Facilitating the participation of people with aphasia in research: a description of strategies. Clin Rehabil 2009; 23 (10) 948-959
  • 66 Pearl G, Cruice M. Facilitating the involvement of people with aphasia in stroke research by developing communicatively accessible research resources. Top Lang Disord 2017; 37 (01) DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000112.
  • 67 Brady MC, Fredrick A, Williams B. People with aphasia: capacity to consent, research participation and intervention inequalities. Int J Stroke 2013; 8 (03) 193-196
  • 68 Tucker FM, Edwards DF, Mathews LK, Baum CM, Connor LT. Modifying health outcome measures for people with aphasia. Am J Occup Ther 2012; 66 (01) 42-50
  • 69 Sixt Börjesson M, Hartelius L, Laakso K. Communicative participation in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2021; 73 (02) 101-108
  • 70 Carlozzi NE, Boileau NR, Roberts A. et al. Understanding speech and swallowing difficulties in individuals with Huntington disease: validation of the HDQLIFE speech difficulties and swallowing difficulties item banks. Qual Life Res 2021; 30 (01) 251-265
  • 71 Lowit A, Egan A, Hadjivassiliou M. Feasibility and acceptability of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment in Progressive Ataxias. Cerebellum 2020; 19 (05) 701-714
  • 72 Eadie TL, Lamvik K, Baylor CR, Yorkston KM, Kim J, Amtmann D. Communicative participation and quality of life in head and neck cancer. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2014; 123 (04) 257-264
  • 73 Sauder C, Kapsner-Smith M, Baylor C, Yorkston K, Futran N, Eadie T. Communicative participation and quality of life in pre-treatment oral and oropharyngeal head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; 164 (03) 616-623
  • 74 Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C. et al. The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997; 6: 66-70
  • 75 Eadie TL, Otero D, Cox S. et al. The relationship between communicative participation and postlaryngectomy speech outcomes. Head Neck 2016; 38 (Suppl. 01) E1955-E1961
  • 76 Eadie TL, Otero DS, Bolt S, Kapsner-Smith M, Sullivan JR. The effect of noise on relationships between speech intelligibility and self-reported communication measures in tracheoesophageal speakers. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2016; 25 (03) 393-407
  • 77 Eadie T, Faust L, Bolt S. et al. Role of Psychosocial Factors on Communicative Participation among Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 159 (02) 266-273
  • 78 Bolt S, Eadie T, Yorkston K, Baylor C, Amtmann D. Variables associated with communicative participation after head and neck cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016; 142 (12) 1145-1151
  • 79 Baylor CR, Yorkston KM, Eadie TL, Miller RM, Amtmann D. Developing the communicative participation item bank: Rasch analysis results from a spasmodic dysphonia sample. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52 (05) 1302-1320
  • 80 Yiu Y, Baylor CR, Bamer AM. et al. Validation of the communicative participation item bank as an outcome measure for spasmodic dysphonia. Laryngoscope 2021; 131 (04) 859-864
  • 81 Engelhoven AER, Zraick RI, Bursac Z, Tulunay-Ugur O, Hadden K. The effects of self-esteem, coping, and voice-related quality of life on communicative participation before and after BOTOX® treatment for spasmodic dysphonia. J Voice 2020:S0892-1997(20)30112-0
  • 82 Baylor CR, Yorkston KM, Eadie TL, Maronian NC. The psychosocial consequences of BOTOX injections for spasmodic dysphonia: a qualitative study of patients' experiences. J Voice 2007; 21 (02) 231-247
  • 83 Desjardins M, Halstead L, Simpson A, Flume P, Bonilha HS. Respiratory muscle strength training to improve vocal function in patients with presbyphonia. J Voice 2020:S0892-1997(20)30229-0
  • 84 Nguyen-Feng VN, Asplund A, Frazier PA, Misono S. Association between communicative participation and psychosocial factors in patients with voice disorders. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 147 (03) 245-252 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.4956.
  • 85 Boyle MP, Beita-Ell C, Milewski KM, Fearon AN. Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and social support and predictors of communicative participation in people who stutter. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2018; 61 (08) 1893-1906
  • 86 Ward EC, Jarman L, Cornwell PL, Amsters DI. Impact of voice and communication deficits for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury living in the community. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2016; 51 (05) 568-580
  • 87 Mul K, Berggren KN, Sills MY. et al. Effects of weakness of orofacial muscles on swallowing and communication in FSHD. Neurology 2019; 92 (09) e957-e963
  • 88 Kim JH, Fisher LM, Reder L, Hapner ER, Pepper JP. Speech and communicative participation in patients with facial paralysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 144 (08) 686-693
  • 89 Ayoub NF, Abdelwahab M, Zhang M. et al. Facial paralysis and communicative participation: the importance of facial symmetry at rest. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2020; 129 (08) 788-794
  • 90 Baylor C, McAuliffe MJ, Hughes LE. et al. A differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB): comparing individuals with Parkinson's disease from the United States and New Zealand. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2014; 57 (01) 90-95