ArticleBrain and behavior2026
Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI-TR) in Post-Stroke Aphasia.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of communication in individuals with aphasia requires tools that capture not only linguistic abilities but also functional communication in everyday life. The Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI) is a widely used caregiver-reported measure; however, a validated Turkish version is not currently available.
objectiveThis study aimed to culturally adapt the CETI into Turkish (CETI-TR) and to examine its validity and reliability in individuals with aphasia.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 55 individuals with stroke (20 with aphasia, 35 without aphasia) and their caregivers. The adaptation process involved translation, back-translation, expert review, and pilot testing. Participants were assessed using the CETI-TR, the Language Assessment Test for Aphasia (LATA), and Quick Aphasia Battery-Turkish Version (QAB-TR). Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest and cross-informant agreement (between caregivers and clinicians) were assessed using correlation analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Criterion validity was examined through correlations with LATA and QAB-TR scores, while discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing individuals with and without aphasia.
resultsThe CETI-TR demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.984), with item-total correlations ranging from 0.766 to 0.964. Test-retest reliability showed high stability (ICC = 0.972). Cross-informant agreement between caregivers and speech-language therapists was high (ICC = 0.936), with no significant difference between ratings (p = 0.246). Moderate, significant correlations were found between CETI-TR scores and LATA (r = 0.439, p = 0.001) and QAB-TR (r = 0.524, p < 0.001). Individuals with aphasia had significantly lower CETI-TR scores than those without aphasia (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe CETI-TR is a valid, reliable, and clinically applicable tool for assessing functional communication in Turkish-speaking individuals with post-stroke aphasia. It provides an ecologically valid measure that can support clinical evaluation, intervention planning, and outcome monitoring in aphasia rehabilitation.
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.