JCPSLP Vol 21 No 2 2019 DIGITAL Edition

2017) give some helpful starting points for goal-setting discussions. 6 Core outcome sets Core outcomes sets are minimum measures recommended for use with a particular population (Williamson et al., 2012). They exist for both research and clinical practice. My team and I have developed a core outcome set for aphasia treatment research studies (read more here https://www. aphasiatrials.org/roma/). We also have plans in the works to develop recommendations for clinical practice (watch this space!). You can learn more about core outcome sets on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative website http://www.comet-initiative.org. They also have a great searchable database of current and completed projects. 7 Know what makes a good outcome measure When choosing an outcome measure it is important to consider whether the measurement instrument is right for the job. At a minimum we should consider: • Validity – can our outcome measure capture the outcomes we are interested in? • Reliability – can we be confident that our outcome measure will produce consistent results? • Sensitivity/responsiveness – can our outcome measure capture change over time and detect if our clients have improved in response to treatment? If our outcome measures are not valid, reliable or sensitive to change, it becomes difficult to demonstrate the outcomes of our interventions. You can find good overviews of measurement properties online and in textbooks such as Stokes (2011). 8 COSMIN COSMIN stands for COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. COSMIN provides helpful methods and tools to assist you to select outcome measures for clinical practice and research. They have a great website – https://www.cosmin.nl – which includes a database for finding systematic reviews of outcome measures (https://database.cosmin.nl/). This can save you a lot of time trying to find information about the A number of systematic reviews for aphasia assessments and outcome measures already exist. These reviews will give you an idea of what outcome measures are available, their measurement properties and whether they are feasible to use in clinical practice. Remember that not all assessments make good outcome measures. Looking at measurement properties like sensitivity to change and feasibility of use (e.g., administration time) will help you choose the right tool. Systematic reviews have been best outcome measures for your clients. 9 Existing systematic reviews

published for measures of: depression (van Dijk, de Man-van Ginkel, Hafsteinsdóttir, & Schuurmans, 2016); discourse (Pritchard, Hilari, Cocks, & Dipper, 2018); short-term and working memory (Murray, Salis, Martin, & Dralle, 2016); social participation (Dalemans, de Witte, Lemmens, van Den Heuvel, & Wade, 2008) and language (Rohde et al., 2018). 10 Join the Twitter-verse I never thought I would be a Twitter user! But…it is an amazing way to connect with the global aphasia community – ask a question, share a tip or find your favourite Twitter users and just watch from the shadows. Some of my favourite Twitter handles for conversations about outcome measurement are: @WeSpeechies, @CATs_Aphasia, @BAS_Aphasia, @MadelineCruice, @Pritchardmr, @LucyEBryant, @KateSwinburn, @abcdlabReading, @AphasiaAccess. Of course you can follow me (@SarahJWallace) as well! References Dalemans, R., de Witte, L., Lemmens, J., van Den Heuvel, W., & Wade, D. (2008). Measures for rating social participation in people with aphasia: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation , 22 (6), 542-555. Golper, L. A. C., & Frattali, C. M. (2013). Outcomes in speech-language pathology (2nd. ed.). New York: Thieme. Murray, L., Salis, C., Martin, N., & Dralle, J. (2018). The use of standardised short-term and working memory tests in aphasia research: A systematic review. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation , 2 8 (3), 309-351. Pritchard, M., Hilari, K., Cocks, N., & Dipper, L. (2018). Psychometric properties of discourse measures in aphasia: Acceptability, reliability, and validity. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders , 53 (6), 1078–1093. Rohde, A., Worrall, L., Godecke, E., O’Halloran, R., Farrell, A., & Massey, M. (2018). Diagnosis of aphasia in stroke populations: A systematic review of language tests. PLoS One , 13 (3), e0194143. Stokes, E. (2011). Rehabilitation outcome measures . Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. van Dijk, M. J., de Man-van Ginkel, J. M., Hafsteinsdóttir, T. B., & Schuurmans, M. J. (2016). Identifying depression post-stroke in patients with aphasia: A systematic review of the reliability, validity and feasibility of available instruments. Clinical Rehabilitation , 30 (8), 795-810. Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., Le Dorze, G., Cruice, M., Isaksen, J., . . . Gauvreau, C. A. (2017). Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? An international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation , 39 (14), 1364-1379. Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., & Gargon, E. (2012). Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: Issues to consider. Trials , 13 .

124

JCPSLP Volume 21, Number 2 2019

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology