JCPSLP Vol 21 No 2 2019 DIGITAL Edition

Measurement and evaluation in practice

Around the journals

Unpublished assessments were used by over 90% of clinicians. Eight key rationales emerged for development or use of these assessments which included using or creating assessments based on clinician’s own experiences (28.6%); adaption of existing assessments to be more suitable (34.7%); use of observation as an assessment tool (63.3%); to provide an individualised approach (26.5%); or to provide a flexible approach (20.4%) to assessment. In addition, clinicians chose unpublished assessments to adequately examine specific areas, such as how and why the person communicates (24.5%); to evaluate environmental factors affecting communication (22.5%) or to establish baseline measures (34.7%). Organisational processes were also cited as a reason for using an unpublished assessment. Overall, there was significant variability in the type and rationale for assessments used for children and adults with PIMD. The assessments were often multifaceted and eclectic in an attempt to meet the complex needs of the population. Given the above results for a small self-selected survey sample, the authors note that there is “little detail on which to base their [the participants’] interventions, and a dearth of sensitive assessments to provide baseline communication information and measure change in this population” (p. 336). A questionnaire such as this is useful for establishing an understanding of how clinicians are doing assessments in this area. However, it clear that there is scope for greater sampling of assessment practices of SLPs in other geographical areas. It also highlights the need for more psychometrically valid communication assessments for this group and further development and research of existing assessments. Within this clinical population, this article explored issues related to measuring and evaluation in practice and the use of the ICF framework to inform assessment. The research identified a need to consider all the domains of the ICF to adequately understand this population and develop appropriate assessment and intervention. Clinicians had sought to assess not only the specific communication skills (i.e., body functions and structures), but also the environmental and personal factors which impacted their participation and daily activities. This complexity is likely to be a significant factor as to why many clinicians are using unpublished assessments rather than psychometrically robust tools. Further research into “fit for purpose” psychometrically sound assessments is needed to reliably map current skills and track changes over time, in order to support and enhance participation for people with PIMD.

Chadwick, D., Buell, S., and Goldbart, J. (2018). Approaches to communication assessment with children and adults with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities . Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability , 32 (2), 336–358. Lucy Sutherland and Emily Moore This article explored the communication assessment measures utilised by speech language pathologists (SLPs) who work with people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD). As this is an area with limited research, the article aimed to highlight the communication assessment approaches commonly used with children and adults with PIMD, and the rationale behind their selection. The study used a survey to collect data from SLPs who are currently in practice in the UK. The survey was developed via a special interest group and piloted with three professionals experienced in PIMD. Data collected included descriptive information and priorities of assessment, with questions relating to the type of assessment material, whether it was used with children and/or adults, and the rationale for using the assessment tool. Information was gathered about both published and unpublished assessments. Fifty-five SLPs who worked with children and/or adults with PIMD were recruited to the study via e-newsletters, a bulletin and special interest groups. Background information of the participants, including experience and workplace, was also collected. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics with quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data (i.e., rationale for assessment choice). Results of the survey showed clinicians used a large range of published assessments. The most commonly used tools were the Preverbal Communication Assessment (used by 45.5% of respondents), Affective Communication Assessment (38.2%) and Checklist of Communication Competence (Triple C) (16.4%). Rationales for choice of published assessments were grouped into six core motivators and included: ease of use (67%); the ability to evaluate the person’s communication development level (59.3%) or how the person communicates (25.9%); the ability to work with communication partners to understand the skill level of a person with PIMD or help communicate that person (37%); or to inform baseline data and intervention planning (37%). Only one person (7.4%) cited they considered the research evidence of an assessment.

121

JCPSLP Volume 21, Number 2 2019

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au