Functional Communication Questionnaire – Validation of the Original Czech Test

Czech version

Authors: M. Košťálová ^1,2; B. Poláková ³; M. Ulreichová ³; P. Šmíd ³; E. Janoušová ⁴; M. Kuhn ^4,5; J. Klenková ³; J. Bednařík ^1,2
Authors‘ workplace: Neurologická klinika LF MU a FN Brno ¹; Výzkumná skupina Aplikované neurovědy, CEITEC – Středoevropský technologický institut MU, Brno ²; Katedra speciální pedagogiky, PdF MU, Brno ³; Institut biostatistiky a analýz, LF MU, Brno ⁴; Výzkumná skupina Behaviorální a sociální neurovědy, CEITEC – Středoevropský technologický institut MU, Brno ⁵
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2015; 78/111(2): 188-195
Category: Original Paper

Overview

Aim:
To develop and validate a new, in the Czech language still missing test of functional communication for patients with aphasia. Methods: Functional Communication Questionnaire (FCQ) comprises 20 items that evaluate communication in four areas of real situations: I. Basal communication, II. Social communication, III. Reading and writing, and IV. Calculation and orientation. Every item is evaluated on 6– degree scale (0– 5 points), and the sum (Functional Communication Index – FCI) of 100 points represents maximum possible value. FCQ was validated in groups of healthy volunteers (n = 110, median age 63 years), patients with aphasia (n = 38, median age 62 years), and patients with Alzheimer dementia (AD) (n = 8, median age 81.5 years).

Results:
Values of FCI correlated significantly with age (Spearman r = – 0.354, p = 0.000148); and different normal limits of FCI were established for decades: 50– 59 years: > 90; 60– 69 years: > 85; 70– 79 years: > 76. Using ROC analysis we confirmed high diagnostic validity of FCQ in discrimination between healthy controls and patients with aphasia (sensitivity of 89.5% and specificity of 93.6% for cut‑off value 86.5; AUC = 0.974; p < 0.001). Degree of functional communication impairment quantified with FCI in patients with aphasia correlated with the degree of language deficit quantified with MASTcz, while there was no significant difference in FCI values between patients with aphasia and AD. Repeated evaluation in 10 patients with aphasia proved very high test‑ retest reliability of FCQ. New therapeutic material based on FCQ was finally introduced into clinical practice.

Conclusion:
FCQ extends the repertoire of diagnostic tests for patients with aphasia available in the Czech language. Our results showed very good psychometric characteristics of FCQ that should be confirmed by further research.

Key words:
diagnosis aphasia – Functional Communication Questionnaire – normative data – self-sufficiency – quality of life

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Sources

1. Hilari K, Cruice M. Quality of life approach to aphasia. In: Papathanasiou I. Coppens P. Potagas C (eds). Aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders. Burlington: Jones and Barlett Learning 2011: 233– 250.

2. Hilari K, Cruice M. Quality of life approach to aphasia. In: Papathanasiou I. Coppens P. Potagas C (eds). Aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders. Burlington: Jones and Barlett Learning 2011: 67– 87.

3. Chapey R. Language Intervention Strategies in Aphasia and Related Neurogenetic Communication Disorders. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008: 277– 403.

4. World Health Organization. Department of mental health and substance dependence [online]. Available from URL: www.who.int/ mental_health2001.

5. Cséfalvay Zs, Košťálová M. Diagnostika afázie. In: Cséfalvay Zs, Lechta V (eds). Diagnostika narušené komunikační schopnosti u dospělých. Praha: Portál 2013: 83– 112.

6. Cséfalvay Zs, Košťálová M. Neurogénne poruchy komunikácie u dospelých. Neurol Prax 2012; 13(6): 304– 307.

7. Frattali C, Thompson CK, Holland AL, Wohl CB, Ferketic MM. American speech‑ language‑ hearing association functional assessment of communication skills for adults. Rockville, MD: American speech‑ language‑ hearing association 1995.

8. Sarno MT. Functional communication profile. New York: Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine 1969.

9. Holland AL, Frattali C, Fromm D. Communicative activities in daily living (CADL‑2). Austin, Texas: Pro‑Ed 1999.

10. Whitworth A, Lesse R, Perkins L. Conversation analysis profile for people with aphasia. London: London Publisher 1997.

11. Košťálová M, Poláková B, Šmíd P, Ulrejchová M,Klenková J, Bednařík J et al. Dotazník funkcionální komunikace [DFK] a terapeutický materiál [online]. Dostupné z URL: http:/ / www.fnbrno.cz/ nemocnice‑ bohunice/ neurologicka‑ klinika/ dotaznik‑ funkcionalni‑ komunikace‑dfk/ t4546.

12. Poláková B, Ulrejchová M, Košťálová M, Klenková J, Bednařík J. Dotazník funkcionální komunikace [DFK]: normativní data. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2013; 76/ 109(3): 385.

13. Šmíd P, Košťálová M, Klenková J. Dotazník funkcionální komunikace [DFK] jako východisko pragmaticky orientované terapie. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2013; 76/ 109(3): 386.

14. Košťálová M, Klenková J, Bednařík J. Dotazník funkcionální komunikace [DFK]: u pacientů s afázií. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2013; 76/ 109(3): 385– 386.

15. Cséfalvay Zs, Demovičová Z. Vyšetrenie funkcionálnej komunikácie – experimentálna verzia, 1998. Bratislava: PdF UK 1998.

16. Bartoš A, Martínek P, Bezdíček O, Buček A, Řípová D. Dotazník funkčního stavu FAQ – česká verze pro zhodnocení každodenních aktivit pacientů s Alzeimerovou nemocí. Psychiatrie pro praxi 2008 [online]. Dostupné z URL: http:/ / www.psychiatriepropraxi.cz/ pdfs/ psy/ 2008/ 01/ 17.pdf.

17. Bartoš A, Martínek P, Bezdíček O, Buček A, Řípová D. Dotazník soběstačnosti DAD‑ cz‑ česká verze pro hodnocení každodenních aktivit pacientů s Alzheimerovou nemocí. Neurol Praxi 2009; 10(5): 320– 321.

18. Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy. Společný evropský referenční rámec pro jazyky [online]. Dostupné z URL: http:/ / www.msmt.cz/ mezinarodni‑ vztahy/ spolecny‑ evropsky‑ referencni‑ ramec‑ pro‑jazyky.

19. Cséfalvay Zs, Košťálová M, Klimešová M. Diagnostika a terapie afázie, alexie, agrafie. Praha: Asociace klinických logopedů České republiky 2003.

20. Folstein MF, Fostein SE, McHugh PR. Mini‑Mental‑ State: a practical method for grading the ognitive state of patiens for the clinician. J Psychiat 1975; 12(3): 196– 198.

21. Koštálová M, Bártková E, Šajgalíková K, Dolenská A,Dušek L, Bednařík J. A standardization study of the Czech version of the Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test (MASTcz) in stroke patients and control subjects. Brain Injury 2008; 22: 793– 801.

22. Hummelová‑ Fanfrdlová Z, Rektorová I, Sheardová K, Bartoš A, Línek V, Resner P et al. Česká adaptace Addenbrookského kognitivního testu. Cesk Psychol 2009; 53(4): 376– 388.

23. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self‑ maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9(3): 179– 186.

24. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Bigler ED, Tranel D. Neuropsychological assessment. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004: 501– 527.

25. Gillis RJ. Community‑ oriented group treatment for traumatic brain injury. In: Elman RJ et al (eds). Group treatment of neurogenic communication disorders. 2nd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing 2007: 317– 341.

26. Hopper T. Group cognitive‑ communication treatment for people with dementia. In: Elman RJ et al (eds). Group treatment of neurogenic communication disorders. 2nd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing 2007: 341– 354.