Transcultural translation and adaptation of the Assessment Battery for Communication (ABaCo) for the Portuguese population
Tradução e adaptação transcultural da Assessment Battery for Communication (ABaCo) para a população portuguesa
Nicole Agrela; Maria Emília Santos; Sandra Guerreiro
Abstract
Purpose: to perform the transcultural adaptation and translation of the ABaCo battery for the Portuguese population and check its psychometric properties.
Methods: initially, the translation and retroversion of ABaCo was done. A total of 40 participants without pathology were recruited. Two equivalent Forms (Form A and Form B) were used, consisting of linguistic, extralinguistic, paralinguistic and context scales. The instrument was also applied to 12 people who were in the chronic phase after severe or moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI). For statistical analysis the following tests were used: Mann-Whitney U test, Student t test for independent samples, Pearson’s correlation (the value is considered significant when p ≤ 0.05) and Cronbach’s alpha (the value is considered minimally acceptable when superior to 0.65).
Results: TBIs’ participants showed lower results as compared to those without neurological pathology. The evidence was discriminatory for the population with TBI, although, on some scales, it was not, due to the ceiling effect. Differences were not found between the two Forms. The results also showed the existence of correlation of schooling and age with some of the components of ABaCo, as verified in the original version. No differences in gender-conditioned responses were found. The battery showed good metrical qualities with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 (Form A) and 0.71 (Form B), for the total sample.
Conclusion: ABaCo has proved to be an appropriate instrument for assessing communication in the Portuguese adult population. Despite the limitations, this instrument is expected to be useful in the evaluation of the communication, following TBI.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: realizar a tradução e adaptação transcultural da bateria ABaCo para a população portuguesa e verificar as suas propriedades psicométricas.
Métodos: foi realizada a tradução e retroversão da ABaCo. Foram recrutados 40 participantes sem patologia. Foram utilizadas as duas Formas equivalentes (Forma A e B), constituídas por quatro escalas: linguística, extralinguística, paralinguística e de contexto. A prova foi também aplicada a 12 pessoas que se encontravam na fase crónica após traumatismo crânio-encefálico (TCE) grave ou moderado. Para análise estatística foram utilizados os seguintes testes: Mann-Whitney U test, teste t de Student para amostras independentes, a correlação de Pearson (o valor é considerado significante se p ≤ 0.05) e o alpha de Cronbach (o valor é considerado minimamente aceitável se for superior a 0.65).
Resultados: os TCE apresentaram resultados mais baixos, comparativamente a população sem patologia neurológica. A prova mostrou ser discriminativa para a população com TCE, embora em algumas escalas tal fato não aconteça, devido ao ceiling effect. Verificou-se não haver diferenças entre as duas Formas. Os resultados mostraram, ainda, a existência de correlação da escolaridade e da idade com algumas das componentes da ABaCo, tal como se verificou na versão original. Não foram verificadas diferenças nas respostas condicionadas pelo gênero. A bateria mostrou ter boas qualidades métricas, com um alpha de Cronbach de 0.90 (Forma A) e de 0.71 (Forma B) para a amostra total.
Conclusão: a ABaCo mostrou ser um instrumento adequado para avaliação da comunicação na população adulta portuguesa. Apesar das limitações, é esperado que esta prova seja útil na avaliação da comunicação em indivíduos acometidos por TCE.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Bosco FM, Angeleri R, Sacco K, Bara BG. Explaining pragmatic performance in traumatic brain injury: a process perspective on communicative errors. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2015;50(1):63-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12114
2. Maas AI, Menon DK, Adelson PD, Andelic N, Bell MJ, Belli A et al. Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(12):987-1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30371-X
3. McDonald S, Fisher A, Flanagan S, Honan CA. Impaired perception of sincerity after severe traumatic brain injury. J Neuropsychol. 2017;11(2):291-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12086
4. Parola A, Bosco FM, Gabbatore I, Galettod V, Zettind M. The impact of the Cognitive Pragmatic Treatment on the pragmatic and informative skills of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). J. Neurolinguistics. 2019;51:53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.12.003
5. Sacco K, Gabbatore I, Geda E, Duca S, Cauda F, Bara BG et al. Rehabilitation of communicative abilities in patients with a history of TBI: behavioral improvements and cerebral changes in resting-state activity. Front Behav Neurosci. 2016;10(48):1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00048
6. Wauters L, Marquardt TP. Disorders of emotional communication in traumatic brain injury. Semin Speech Lang. 2019;40(1):13-26. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676364
7. Prutting CA. Pragmatics as social competence. J Speech Hear Disord. 1982;47(2):123-34.
8. Honan CA, McDonald S, Gowland A, Fisher A, Randall RK. Deficits in comprehension of speech acts after TBI: the role of theory of mind and executive function. Brain Lang. 2015;150:69-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.08.007
9. Galski T, Tompkins C, Johnston MV. Competence in discourse as a measure of social integration and quality of life in persons with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 1998;12(9):769-82.
10. Angeleri R, Bosco FM, Zettin M, Sacco K, Colle L, Bara BG. Communicative impairment in traumatic brain injury: a complete pragmatic assessment. Brain Lang. 2008;107(3):229-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.01.002
11. Coelho CA, Youse KM, Le KN. Conversational discourse in closed-head-injured and non-brain-injured adults. Aphasiology. 2010;16(4-6):659-72.
12. Drummond SS, Boss MR. Functional communication screening in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2004;18(1):41-56.
13. Green RE, Turner GR, Thompson WF. Deficit in facial emotion perception in adults with recent traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(2):133-41.
14. McDonald S. Viewing the brain sideways? Right hemisphere versus anterior models of non-aphasic language disorders. Aphasiology. 1993;7(6):535-49.
15. Rousseaux M, Vérigneaux C, Kozlowski O. An analysis of communication in conversation after severe traumatic brain injury. Eur J Neurol. 2010;17(7):922-9.
16. Parola A, Gabbatore I, Bosco FM, Bara BG, Cossa FM, Gindri P et al. Assessment of pragmatic impairment in right hemisphere damage. J Neuropsychol. 2016;39:10-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.12.003
17. Barman A, Chatterjee A, Bhide R. Cognitive impairment and rehabilitation strategies after traumatic brain injury. Indian J Psychol Med. 2016;38(3):172-81. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.183086
18. Gauthier S, LeBlanc J, Seresova A, Laberge-Poirier A, Correa J, Alturki AY et al. Acute prediction of outcome and cognitive-communication impairments following traumatic brain injury: the influence of age, education and site of lesion. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2018;73(5):77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2018.04.003
19. Kintz S, Hibbs V, Henderson A, Andrews M, Wright HH. Discourse-based treatment in mild traumatic brain injury. J Commun Disord. 2018;76:47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2018.08.001
20. Bosco FM, Parola A, Angeleri R, Galetto V, Zettin M, Gabbatore I. Improvement of communication skills after traumatic brain injury: the efficacy of the Cognitive Pragmatic Treatment Program using the communicative activities of daily living. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2018;33(7):875-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acy041
21. Frith M, Togher L, Ferguson A, Levick W, Docking K. Assessment practices of speech-language pathologists for cognitive communication disorders following traumatic brain injury in adults: an international survey. Brain Inj. 2014;28(13-14):1657-66. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2014.947619
22. Dardier V, Bernicot J, Delanoe A, Vanberten M, Fayada C, Chevignard M et al. Severe traumatic brain injury, frontal lesions, and social aspects of language use: a study of French-speaking adults. J Commun Disord. 2011;44(3):359-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2011.02.001
23. Sainson C, Barat M, Agurt M. Communication disorders and executive function impairment after severe traumatic brain injury: an exploratory study using the GALI (a grid for linguistic analysis of free conversational interchange). Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;57(9-10):664-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2014.08.011
24. Angeleri R, Bosco FM, Gabbatore I, Bara BG, Sacco K. Assessment battery for communication (ABaCO): normative data. Behav Res Methods. 2012;44(3):845-61. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0174-9
25. Bosco FM, Angeleri R, Zuffranieri M, Bara BG, Sacco K. Assessment Battery for Communication: development of two equivalent forms. J Commun Disord. 2012;45(4):290-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.03.002
26. Sacco K, Angeleri R, Bosco FM, Colle L, Mate D, Bara BG. Assessment Battery for Communication – ABaCO: a new instrument for the evaluation of pragmatic abilities. J Cogn Sci. 2008;9:111-57.
27. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. SPINE. 2000;25(24):3186-91.
28. Steel J, Togher L. Social communication assessment after TBI: a narrative review of innovations in pragmatic and discourse assessment methods. Brain Inj. 2018;10(4):1-14. http://dx.doi:10.1080/02699052.2018.1531304
Submitted date:
10/21/2019
Accepted date:
04/27/2020
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email