ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2025
Face and Content Validation of the 10-Item Communicative Participation Item Bank General Short Form for Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Cognitive Interviewing Study.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the face and content validity of the 10-item Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) General Short Form for persons with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and their communication partners.
methodNine dyads, each consisting of a person with PPA and their communication partner, completed semistructured cognitive interviews that assessed the instructions, format, response options, item comprehension, and relevance to their experiences with PPA. Interviews were conducted via videoconference. Closed-ended responses were quantified, and open-ended responses were analyzed via thematic analysis. Summaries were generated for each item, including recommended changes.
resultsMeasure instructions and format were clear to all participants (
conclusionsInitial data support use of the CPIB with persons with PPA and their communication partners for capturing clinically meaningful communication function. Potential modifications for sharpening the relevance, applicability, and sensitivity to longitudinal measurement of change include increasing the number of response levels, adding an item on communicative participation via phone/videochat, and using proctored administration for persons with PPA. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.30299941.
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.