Reliability and validity evidence of the Assessment of Language Use in Social Contexts for Adults (ALUSCA). (2nd October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Valente, Ana Rita S.; Hall, Andreia; Alvelos, Helena; Leahy, Margaret; Jesus, Luis M. T.
• Is Part Of: Logopedics, phoniatrics, vocology. Volume 44:Number 4(2019)
• Page Start: 166
• Page End: 177
• Publication Date: 2019-10-02
• Subjects: Stuttering -- pragmatic competencies -- adults -- language; Language disorders -- Periodicals; Speech disorders -- Periodicals; Vocal cords -- Periodicals; Voice -- Periodicals; 616.855
• DOI: 10.1080/14015439.2018.1458898
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1401-5439

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The appropriate use of language in context depends on the speaker's pragmatic language competencies. A coding system was used to develop a specific and adult-focused self-administered questionnaire to adults who stutter and adults who do not stutter, The Assessment of Language Use in Social Contexts for Adults, with three categories: precursors, basic exchanges, and extended literal/non-literal discourse. This paper presents the content validity, item analysis, reliability coefficients and evidences of construct validity of the instrument. Methods: Content validity analysis was based on a two-stage process: first, 11 pragmatic questionnaires were assessed to identify items that probe each pragmatic competency and to create the first version of the instrument; second, items were assessed qualitatively by an expert panel composed by adults who stutter and controls, and quantitatively and qualitatively by an expert panel composed by clinicians. A pilot study was conducted with five adults who stutter and five controls to analyse items and calculate reliability. Construct validity evidences were obtained using the hypothesized relationships method and factor analysis with 28 adults who stutter and 28 controls. Results: Concerning content validity, the questionnaires assessed up to 13 pragmatic competencies. Qualitative and quantitative analysis revealed ambiguities in items construction. Disagreement between experts was solved through item modification. The pilot study showed that the instrument presented internal consistency and temporal stability. Significant differences between adults who stutter and controls and different response profiles revealed the instrument's underlying construct. Conclusion: The instrument is reliable and presented evidences of construct validity.