CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/20232022012en
CoDAS
Original Article

Translation into Brazilian Portuguese and transcultural adaptation of the Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale 3.5

Tradução e adaptação transcultural do Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale 3.5 para o português brasileiro

Dhébora Heloísa Nascimento dos Santos; Ivonaldo Leidson Barbosa Lima; Leonardo Wanderley Lopes

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20232022012en CoDAS, vol.35, n3, e20220012, 2023
PDF English
PDF Português
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 5
Views: 612

Abstract

Purpose

To present the translation into Brazilian Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation of the Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale (ASRS) version 3.5.

Methods

Validation study restricted to translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The following steps were carried out: translation and synthesis of translations; verification of applicability of the scale synthesis by judges recruited for this purpose; analysis of the relevance and feasibility of the scale calculated by the Content Validity Index (CVI), individual (CVI-I) and total (CVI-T). Eighteen speech therapists were selected. Their answers were used for the analysis of agreement (intraclass correlation coefficients - ICC) and for the calculation of the Content Validity Index (CVI). Finally, the synthesis of the translation was matched in terms of semantic, idiomatic, experiential, conceptual, syntactic, grammatical, and operational equivalence.

Results

The ICC ranged between 0.83 and 0.94. Six items obtained values higher than 0.9. The other items presented values between 0.8 and 0.9. The CVI-I and CVI-T had excellent values (CVI ≥ 0.78) for relevance and feasibility.

Conclusion

The Brazilian version of the ASRS 3.5 presents semantic, idiomatic, experiential, conceptual, and syntactic/grammatical equivalence to the original document. Thus, it is ready for the next validation steps.

Keywords

Apraxias; Speech Disorders; Differential Diagnosis; Validation Study; Psychometry; Speech; Language and Hearing Sciences

Resumo

Objetivo

Apresentar a tradução e adaptação transcultural do Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale (ASRS) versão 3.5 para o português brasileiro.

Método

Estudo de validação restrito à tradução e adaptação transcultural. Foram realizadas as seguintes etapas: tradução e síntese das traduções; verificação da aplicabilidade da síntese da escala por juízes, recrutados para tal finalidade; análise da relevância e da viabilidade da escala, calculadas pelo Índice de Validade de Conteúdo (IVC) individual (IVC-I) e total (IVC-T). Foram selecionados 18 fonoaudiólogos, cujas respostas foram utilizadas para a análise de concordância (coeficientes de correlação intraclasse - CCI) e o cálculo do Índice de Validade de Conteúdo (IVC). Por fim, a síntese da tradução foi equiparada quanto à equivalência semântica, idiomática, experiencial, conceitual, sintática, gramatical e operacional.

Resultados

O CCI variou entre 0,83 e 0,94. Seis itens obtiveram valores superiores a 0,9. Os demais itens apresentaram valores entre 0,8 e 0,9. O IVC-I e IVC-T apresentaram excelentes valores (IVC ≥ 0,78) para a relevância e viabilidade.

Conclusão

A versão brasileira do ASRS 3.5 apresenta equivalência semântica, idiomática, experiencial, conceitual e sintática/gramatical em relação ao original, dessa forma, está apta para as próximas etapas de validação.

Palavras-chave

Apraxias; Distúrbios da Fala; Diagnóstico Diferencial; Estudo de Validação; Psicometria; Fonoaudiologia

Referencias

  1. Duffy JR. Motor speech disorders: substrates, differential diagnosis, and management. 3. ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2013.
  2. Basilakos A. Contemporary approaches to the management of post-stroke. Apraxia of speech. Semin Speech Lang. 2018;39(1):25-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1608853 PMid:29359303.
  3. Van Der Merwe A. New perspectives on speech motor planning and programming in the context of the four- level model and its implications for understanding the pathophysiology underlying apraxia of speech and other motor speech disorders. Aphasiology. 2021;35(4):397-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2020.1765306
  4. Groenewegen HJ. The basal ganglia and motor control. Neural Plast. 2003;10(1-2):107-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/NP.2003.107 PMid:14640312.
  5. Leisman G, Braun-Benjamin O, Melillo R. Cognitive-motor interactions of the basal ganglia in development. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014;8:16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00016 PMid:24592214.
  6. Callan DE, Kawato M, Parsons L, Turner R. Speech and song: the role of the cerebellum. Cerebellum. 2007;6(4):321-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14734220601187733 PMid:17853077.
  7. Habas C. Functional imaging of the deep cerebellar nuclei: a review. Cerebellum. 2010;9(1):22-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12311-009-0119-3 PMid:19513801.
  8. Ito M. Control of mental activities by internal models in the cerebellum. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(4):304-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2332 PMid:18319727.
  9. Xu D, Liu T, Ashe J, Bushara KO. Role of the olivo-cerebellar system in timing. J Neurosci. 2006;26(22):5990-5. PMid:16738241.
  10. Fetz EE. Cortical mechanisms controlling limb movement. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1993;3(6):932-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-4388(93)90165-U PMid:8124077.
  11. Murata A, Wen W, Asama H. The body and objects represented in the ventral stream of the parieto-premotor network. Neurosci Res. 2016;104:4-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2015.10.010 PMid:26562332.
  12. Reis J, Swayne OB, Vandermeeren Y, Camus M, Dimyan MA, Harris-Love M, et al. Contribution of transcranial magnetic stimulation to the understanding of cortical mechanisms involved in motor control. J Physiol. 2008;586(2):325-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2007.144824 PMid:17974592.
  13. Basilakos A, Yourganov G, Ouden DB, Fogerty D, Rorden C, Feenaughty L, et al. A multivariate analytic approach to the differential diagnosis of apraxia of speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60(12):3378-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0443 PMid:29181537.
  14. Utianski RL, Duffy JR, Clark HM, Strand EA, Botha H, Schwarz CG, et al. Prosodic and phonetic subtypes of primary progressive apraxia of speech. Brain Lang. 2018;184:54-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2018.06.004 PMid:29980072.
  15. Josephs KA, Duffy JR, Strand EA, Whitwell JL, Layton KF, Parisi JE, et al. Clinicopathological and imaging correlates of progressive aphasia and apraxia of speech. Brain. 2006;129(6):1385-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl078 PMid:16613895.
  16. Haley KL, Jacks A, Riesthal M, Abou-Khalil R, Roth HL. Toward a quantitative basis for assessment and diagnosis of apraxia of speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(5):S1502-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0318) PMid:23033444.
  17. Strand EA, Duffy JR, Clark HM, Josephs K. The apraxia of speech rating scale: a tool for diagnosis and description of apraxia of speech. J Commun Disord. 2014;51:43-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.06.008 PMid:25092638.
  18. Pernambuco L, Espelt A, Magalhães HV, Lima KC. Recommendations for elaboration, transcultural adaptation and validation process of tests in Speech, Hearing and Language Pathology. CoDAS. 2017;29(3):e20160217. PMid:28614460.
  19. Lopes LW, Alves GAS, Melo ML. Content evidence of a spectrographic analysis protocol. Rev CEFAC. 2017;19(4):510-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620171942917
  20. McGilton KS. Development and psychometric evaluation of supportive leadership scales. Can J Nurs Res. 2003;35(4):72-86. PMid:14746122.
  21. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N PMid:8263569.
  22. Alexandre NMC, Coluci MZO. Validade de conteúdo nos processos de construção e adaptação de instrumentos de medidas. Cien Saude Colet. 2011;16(7):3061-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232011000800006 PMid:21808894.
  23. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross cultural health care research: a clear and user friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):268-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x PMid:20874835.
  24. Amaro L. Descrição de distorções dos sons da fala em crianças com e sem transtornos fonológicos. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2006;36:190-7.
  25. Haley KL, Jacks A, Richardson JD, Wambaugh JL. Perceptually salient sound distortions and apraxia of speech: a performance continuum. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017;26(2S):631-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0103 PMid:28654944.
  26. Duffy JR, Hanley H, Utianski R, Clark H, Strand E, Josephs KA, et al. Temporal acoustic measures distinguish primary progressive apraxia of speech from primary progressive aphasia. Brain Lang. 2017;168:84-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2017.01.012 PMid:28187331.
  27. Hybbinette H, Östeberg P, Schalling E. Intra- and interjudge reliability of the apraxia of speech rating scale in early stroke patients. J Commun Disord. 2021;89:106076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2020.106076 PMid:33493822.
  28. Borden GJ, Harris KS, Raphael LJ. Speech science primer: physiology, acoustics, and perception of speech. 4. ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.
  29. Ballard KJ, Azizi L, Duffy JR, McNeil MR, Halaki M, O’Dwyer N, et al. A predictive model for diagnosing stroke-related apraxia of speech. Neuropsychologia. 2016;81:129-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.12.010 PMid:26707715.
  30. Etchell AC, Civier O, Ballard KJ, Sowman PF. A systematic literature review of neuroimaging research on developmental stuttering between 1995 and 2016. J Fluency Disord. 2018;55:6-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.03.007 PMid:28778745.
     
649f020da953950eeb5be704 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Electrónico)
CoDAS ©2024 Todos los derechos reservados.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections