ABSTRACT

Background

In clinical practice and in research, aphasia measurement instruments are used for many reasons: to screen and diagnose, to identify deficits and strengths, and to measure outcomes. A proliferation in available measurement instruments presents challenges to both the aphasia clinician and researcher and forms a barrier to optimal practice. There is a need for a comprehensive review of measurement instruments to identify the diversity of constructs measured by available tools and their cultural and linguistic applicability to the international aphasia community.

Aims

(1) To identify all available standardised measurement instruments which have been developed or tested with people with aphasia; and (2) To describe the construct/s measured, method of report, structure (components and scoring system), and availability of cultural/linguistic adaptations, of identified instruments.

Methods and Procedures

This scoping review is reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies were identified through searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. Secondary searches of individual measurement instruments and hand searching were also undertaken. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Inclusion criteria: studies reporting psychometric properties of measurement instruments, participants with aphasia (or their proxies), English language full-text journal articles. Data extracted: purpose, structure, and method of report of each instrument. The construct(s) reported to be measured by each instrument was classified according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

Outcomes and Results

A total of 3642 articles were identified through database searches. Following the removal of duplicates, 2879 articles were screened by title and abstract; with 334 articles undergoing full-text review. Secondary searches of individual measurement instruments and hand searching identified a further 99 publications. In total, 284 references for 143 measurement instruments were included in this review. Measurement instruments were classified by ICF component; the majority were reported to be measures of Body Functions (n = 94); followed by Activity/Participation (n = 23); Environmental Factors (n = 5); and quality of life/other constructs not within the ICF (n = 16). Five measured multiple ICF components.

Conclusions and Implications

This review identified 143 measurement instruments, developed or tested with people with aphasia. Classified according to the ICF, these instruments primarily measure Body Functions (n = 94). Some measurement instruments have undergone extensive cultural and linguistic translation/adaptation, however most have not. The resulting corpus of instruments provides a basis for the selection of measurement instruments in clinical and research settings.

中文翻译：

---

多种测量方法：用于失语症患者的测量仪器的范围审查

摘要

背景

在临床实践和研究中，使用失语症测量仪器的原因有很多：筛查和诊断、识别缺陷和优势以及测量结果。可用测量仪器的激增给失语症临床医生和研究人员带来了挑战，并形成了最佳实践的障碍。有必要对测量工具进行全面审查，以确定可用工具测量的结构的多样性及其对国际失语症社区的文化和语言适用性。

目标

(1) 识别所有可用于失语症患者开发或测试的可用标准化测量仪器；(2) 描述已确定工具的结构、报告方法、结构（组件和评分系统）以及文化/语言适应的可用性。

方法和程序

此范围审查的报告与系统审查的首选报告项目和范围审查的元分析扩展 (PRISMA-ScR) 一致。通过搜索 PUBMED、EMBASE 和 CINAHL 数据库确定研究。还对个别测量仪器和手动搜索进行了二次搜索。两名审稿人独立评估标题、摘要和全文文章。纳入标准：报告测量仪器的心理测量特性的研究、失语症参与者（或其代理人）、英语全文期刊文章。提取的数据：每个仪器的目的、结构和报告方法。根据国际功能、残疾和健康分类 (ICF) 对每个仪器报告的测量结构进行分类。

结果和结果

通过数据库搜索共确定了 3642 篇文章。去除重复后，按标题和摘要筛选了2879篇文章；334 篇文章正在接受全文审查。对单个测量仪器的二次检索和手动检索确定了另外 99 篇出版物。此次审查共收录了 143 种测量仪器的 284 篇参考文献。测量仪器按ICF成分分类；据报道，大多数是身体功能的测量值（n = 94）；其次是活动/参与（n = 23）；环境因素（n = 5）；和不在 ICF 范围内的生活质量/其他结构（n = 16）。五个测量了多个 ICF 组件。

结论和启示

这篇综述确定了 143 种测量仪器，它们是针对失语症患者开发或测试的。根据 ICF 分类，这些仪器主要测量身体功能 (n = 94)。一些测量仪器已经经历了广泛的文化和语言翻译/改编，但大多数都没有。由此产生的仪器语料库为在临床和研究环境中选择测量仪器提供了基础。