2015
DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2015.1010475
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of the Italian version of the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association—Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for adults (I-ASHA-FACS)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The survey includes an open question where clinicians could list additional tests they used in the clinical practice. We extracted the names of other tests and found that respondents reported to use the Batteria per l’Analisi dei Deficit Afasici ( Miceli et al, 1994 ), The Communicative Effectiveness Index ( Lomas et al, 1989 ) or the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association—Functional Assessment of Communication Skills ( Muò et al, 2015 ) or the Italian version of the Communication Outcome after Stroke scales for patients and caregivers ( Bambini et al, 2017 ). Very few respondents reported using the Cookie Theft description task.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The survey includes an open question where clinicians could list additional tests they used in the clinical practice. We extracted the names of other tests and found that respondents reported to use the Batteria per l’Analisi dei Deficit Afasici ( Miceli et al, 1994 ), The Communicative Effectiveness Index ( Lomas et al, 1989 ) or the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association—Functional Assessment of Communication Skills ( Muò et al, 2015 ) or the Italian version of the Communication Outcome after Stroke scales for patients and caregivers ( Bambini et al, 2017 ). Very few respondents reported using the Cookie Theft description task.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second most commonly used tool, informal assessment of communication, was rated as never used by six (4.3%) respondents and as always used by 86 (61.4%) of respondents. Commonly used formal published tests and batteries included the Aachener Aphasia Test (AAT, Luzzatti et al, 1994), always used by 28 (20.0%) respondents and never used by 37 (26.4%) respondents; the Esame Neuropsicologico per l'Afasia (ENPA, Miceli et al, 1994), always used by 25 (17.9%), often used by 51 (36.4%) respondents, and never used by 25 (17.9%) respondents; the (Miceli et al, 1994), The Communicative Effectiveness Index (Lomas et al, 1989) or the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association-Functional Assessment of Communication Skills (Muò et al, 2015) or the Italian version of the Communication Outcome after Stroke scales for patients and caregivers (Bambini et al, 2017). Very few respon- dents reported using the Cookie Theft description task.…”
Section: Assessment Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each item is rated on a seven-point scale indicating the level of independence needed to communicate (22). This scale was used in previous studies with older adults (27)(28)(29). Since there was no validation and translation of the scale for Colombia, the scale was translated and reviewed by academic peers for this study (Appendix 1), as well as the statistical application of Cronbach's alpha to measure the internal consistency of each of the domains.…”
Section: Participants Inclusion Criteria and Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%