ArticleJournal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine2022
Validation of the pediatric Radboud Dysarthria Assessment.
Article in Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Non-Speech Oral Movement Assessment for Children.Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP) · 2024Article
- Dysarthria in children and adults with ataxia telangiectasia.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2021Article
- An Observational Study of Discourse Tasks and Running Speech Sampling in the Assessment of Paediatric Voice Quality.International journal of language & communication disordersObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Radboud Dysarthria Assessment (RDA) was published in 2014. Adaptation into a pediatric version (p-RDA) was required because of relevant differences between children and adults. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of the p-RDA and to test intra-rater and inter-rater reliability as well as the validity of the two severity scales (function and activity level).
methodsVideo recordings were made of 35 participants with (suspected) dysarthria (age 4 to 17 years) while being assessed using the p-RDA. Intra-rater reliability was assessed by one, and inter-rater reliability by two experiments using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Validity of the severity scales was tested by correlating the consensus scores with the independently rated scores on four communication scales, three mobility scales, and one self-care scale using Spearman correlation coefficients (rs).
resultsThe assessment was applicable for 89% of the tested sample, with good intra-rater and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.88-0.98 and 0.83-0.93). The p-RDA severity scales (function and activity level) correlated from substantially to strongly with the communication scales (rs = 0.69-0.82 and 0.77-0.92) and self-care scale (rs = 0.76-0.71) and correlated substantially with the mobility scales (rs = 0.49-0.60).
conclusionThe feasibility, reliability and validity of the p-RDA are sufficient for clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.