Copyright Notice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/about/copyright/
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date or incorrect.
Bookshelf ID: NBK36544
Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language Disorders
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 52
Andrea K Biddle, PhD, MPH, Linda R Watson, EdD, Celia R Hooper, PhD, Kathleen N Lohr, PhD, and Sonya F Sutton, BSPH.
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); January 2002.
Report No.: 02-E010
Copyright Notice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/about/copyright/
Structured Abstract
Objectives:
Approximately 42 million Americans have some type of communication disorder, costing the nation $30 billion to $154 billion for lost productivity, special education, and medical care annually. The quality of the numerous evaluation procedures and instruments for clinical decisionmaking about language, speech, or voice disorders influences decisions about access to services and funding (e.g., special education services, Social Security disability income). The RTI-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center conducted a systematic review of the literature to address two key questions about evaluating and diagnosing speech and language disorders in adults and children of particular concern to the Social Security Administration in making disability eligibility determinations: (1) What instruments have demonstrated reliability, validity, and normative data? (2) Do these instruments have predictive validity for an individual's communicative impairment, performance, or both?
Search Strategy:
We conducted detailed searches of the English-language literature from 1966 to October 2000 using the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycLIT®, ERIC, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane Collaboration databases.
Selection Criteria:
We included all English-language research on 18 instruments for children and adults in which investigators evaluated the instrument's reliability, validity, or ability to predict future communicative impairment or functioning. Excluded were articles reporting the efficacy or effectiveness of specific interventions that did not provide information on the key questions, articles providing normative data from non-US populations, and all gray literature (i.e., literature not from peer-reviewed sources) except instrument manuals. An independent expert panel knowledgeable in language, speech, or voice disorders had identified the instruments we reviewed.
Data Collection and Analysis:
We selected studies from among 1,238 citations using a process of duplicate, independent review of titles, abstracts, and, where necessary, full papers. We abstracted data on 92 articles or manuals, using single abstraction with subsequent review by clinical and methodological experts; reviewers also completed quality rating forms. Criteria used to evaluate reliability, validity, and other data reflect widely accepted or known standards for the psychometric properties of such instruments.
Main Results:
Among language disorder instruments, one (of three) for adults and four (of eight) for children met or nearly met our evaluation criteria for reliability and validity; two child-specific instruments provided data for subpopulations. Although these five instruments had norms, only the child-specific instruments provided nationally representative data. Two (of three) instruments for voice disorders met evaluation criteria; speech disorder instruments did not. Only four studies gave information on prediction of future communicative functioning and impairment.
Conclusions:
Reliability and validity data for the majority of instruments rarely came from peer-reviewed literature; instrument manuals yielded most such data. Some manuals provided comprehensive data from well-conducted standardization studies; most did not. Because normative data were usually not derived from nationally representative samples, generalizing results beyond the populations studied was difficult. Sample size and representativeness problems limited the predictive validity studies. Overall, evidence about diagnostic or predictive properties of instruments addressing language, speech, and voice disorders is weak and incomplete at this time. The sparse evidence base suggests a substantial methodologic, clinical, and policymaking research agenda.
Contents
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.1 Contract No. 290-97-0011. Prepared by: Research Triangle Institute Evidence-based Practice Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Suggested citation:
Biddle A, Watson L, Hooper C, et al. Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language Disorders. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 52 (Prepared by the University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No 290-97-0011). AHRQ Publication No. 02-E010. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. January 2002.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
AHRQ is the lead Federal agency charged with supporting research designed to improve the quality of health care, reduce its cost, address patient safety and medical errors, and broaden access to essential services. AHRQ sponsors and conducts research that provides evidence-based information on health care outcomes; quality; and cost, use, and access. The information helps health care decisionmakers -- patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers -- make more informed decisions and improve the quality of health care services.
The authors of this report are responsible for its content. Statements in the report should not be construed as endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of a particular drug, device, test, treatment, or other clinical service.
- 1
2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MC 20852. www.ahrq.gov
-
Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language Disorders
Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language DisordersBookshelf
-
References - Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language Disorders
References - Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language DisordersBookshelf
-
Appendix D: Methodology - Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language...
Appendix D: Methodology - Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language DisordersBookshelf
-
Appendix C: Peer Review - Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language...
Appendix C: Peer Review - Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language DisordersBookshelf
-
Appendix B: Technical Expert Advisory Group (TEAG) - Criteria for Determining Di...
Appendix B: Technical Expert Advisory Group (TEAG) - Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language DisordersBookshelf
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...