SynthesisInternational journal of language & communication disorders
Communication Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Adults With Communication Disorders: A Systematic Review of Content Validity.
Synthesis in International journal of language & communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Voice and Speech in Atypical Parkinsonian Disorders.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Review
- Measuring affective symptoms of depression in aphasia: development of an accessible ecological momentary assessment tool.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Psycho-Vox: A Polish Questionnaire for the Differential Diagnosis of Muscle Tension Dysphonia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Life-Course Access to Speech and Language Therapy: A Rights-Based AAAQ Policy Mapping in Türkiye and Four Comparator Settings.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContent validity is a key measurement property that should be considered when selecting or reviewing a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). In the field of communication disorders, there are several PROMs available, most of which are disease specific. It is unknown what the quality of the content validity of these PROMs is.
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the content validity of existing communication PROMs used with adults with communication disorders.
methodsThis study evaluated PROMs drawn from a previously published systematic literature review. Of 31 measures, 25 measures were included in this review, covering a range of communication-related constructs in different communication disorders. The process of rating followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs. There were three stages to the evaluation process comprising Step 1: evaluating the quality of the PROM development, Step 2: evaluating the quality of content validity studies on the PROM (if available) and Step 3: evaluating the content validity of the PROM overall, based on the quality and results of the available studies and the PROM itself. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: Step 1: With regards to the quality of the PROM development, 21 of 25 PROMs were rated as inadequate. Step 2: Content validity studies were available for five of the PROMs. All of these studies were rated doubtful or inadequate. Step 3: The quality of the available evidence on content validity of the included PROMs was overall very low. Only the evidence on the content validity of the Communication Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and the Neuro-QoL (Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders) was rated as of moderate quality.
conclusionsResults of this study highlight the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the development and content validity of PROMs that aim to capture the construct of communication. This review is a call to action for future PROMs to include both the target population and professionals in development and content validity testing, using rigorous methodology in the process. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject There are several patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) available for adult communication disorders. Many of these PROMs have been assessed on one or more psychometric properties, typically reliability and validity aspects. Content validity is often overlooked in research. What this study adds Clinimetric and psychometric experts recommend content validity as the first and most important measurement property to consider when selecting a scale. This study is the first to provide a systematic assessment of the quality of content validity of communication PROMs used in adult communication disorders. What are the potential or clinical implications of this work? Using measures with good content validity during outcome measurement ensures that researchers and clinicians capture constructs that are relevant and important to clients. It also ensures that the measures used are accessible to the clients and comprehensively address their needs.
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.