1/1
The Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM) (Hula et al., 2015)
dataset
posted on 2015-06-01, 00:00 authored by William D. Hula, Patrick J. Doyle, Clement A. Stone, Shannon N. Austermann Hula, Stacey Kellough, Julie L. Wambaugh, Katherine B. Ross, James G. Schumacher, Ann St. JacquePurpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the structure and measurement properties of the Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM), a patient-reported outcome measure of communicative functioning for persons with aphasia.
Method Three hundred twenty-nine participants with aphasia responded to 177 items asking about communicative functioning. The data were analyzed using a categorical item factor analysis approach. Validity of ACOM scores on the basis of their convergence with performance-based, clinician-reported, and surrogate-reported assessments of communication was also assessed.
Results Fifty-nine items that obtained adequate fit to a modified bifactor measurement model and functioned similarly across several demographic and clinical subgroupings were identified. The factor model estimates were transformed to item response theory graded response model parameters, and the resulting score estimates showed good precision and moderately strong convergence with other measures of communicative ability and functioning. A free software application for administration and scoring of the ACOM item bank is available from the first author.
Conclusions The ACOM provides reliable measurement of patient-reported communicative functioning in aphasia. The results supported the validity of ACOM scores insofar as (a) factor analyses provided support for a coherent measurement model, (b) items functioned similarly across demographic and clinical subgroups, and (c) scores showed good convergence with measures of related constructs.
Method Three hundred twenty-nine participants with aphasia responded to 177 items asking about communicative functioning. The data were analyzed using a categorical item factor analysis approach. Validity of ACOM scores on the basis of their convergence with performance-based, clinician-reported, and surrogate-reported assessments of communication was also assessed.
Results Fifty-nine items that obtained adequate fit to a modified bifactor measurement model and functioned similarly across several demographic and clinical subgroupings were identified. The factor model estimates were transformed to item response theory graded response model parameters, and the resulting score estimates showed good precision and moderately strong convergence with other measures of communicative ability and functioning. A free software application for administration and scoring of the ACOM item bank is available from the first author.
Conclusions The ACOM provides reliable measurement of patient-reported communicative functioning in aphasia. The results supported the validity of ACOM scores insofar as (a) factor analyses provided support for a coherent measurement model, (b) items functioned similarly across demographic and clinical subgroups, and (c) scores showed good convergence with measures of related constructs.
