Hidecker_CFCS_ArkSHA_2010_09_30

advertisement

Mary Jo Cooley Hidecker, PhD, CCC-A/SLP

Speech-Language Pathology

University of Central Arkansas

Email: MJCHidecker@uca.edu

Cerebral Palsy Definition

“describes a group of permanent disorders of the development of movement and posture, causing activity limitations, that are attributed to nonprogressive disturbances that occurred in the

developing fetal or infant brain.

The motor disturbances of cerebral palsy are often accompanied by disturbances of sensation , perception, cognition, communication , and behaviour, by epilepsy, and by secondary musculoskeletal problems”

Rosenbaum, et al. (2007)

Cerebral Palsy Definition

Annotations of each term follow, including:

“ ‘ sensation ’ – Vision, hearing and other sensory modalities may be affected, both as a function of the ‘primary’ disturbance(s) to which CP is attributed, and as a secondary consequence of activity limitations that restrict learning and perceptual development experiences.”

“ ‘ communication ’ – Expressive and/or receptive

communication and/or social interaction skills may be affected, both as a function of the ‘primary’ disturbance(s) to which CP is attributed, and as a secondary consequence of activity limitations that restrict learning and perceptual development experiences.”

Rosenbaum, et al. (2007)

3

How many individuals with CP have communication problems?

 Few recent studies conducted by SLPs and audiologists

Many citations are based on published U.S. research in 1950’s and 1960’s

Need for CP epidemiological studies of communication and eating

In U.S., no national registry of individuals with CP

Expensive research to carry out and maintain

Need for multidisciplinary teams

4

How many individuals with CP have communication problems?

No consensus on operational definitions

58% with “communication problem”

7% with “hearing problem”

Bax et al (2006)

 Cerebral palsy registries (n=26)

Hidecker et al (2009)

 11 speech definitions used by 22 registries

 8 language definitions used by 11 registries

 14 hearing definitions used by 25 registries

 6 AAC definitions used by 6 registries

5

How many individuals with CP have communication problems?

 Norway CP Registry

(Andersen, et al. 2010)

 51% of 564 children had speech problems

Speech problems = “indistinct” or “no speech”

 54% of children with speech problems had AAC

58% of the children with speech problems used graphic

AAC

33% of the children with speech problems used hand signs

6

Few Communication

Measures in CP Studies

Need: Better measures of speech, language, and hearing within existing

CP epidemiological studies.

Challenge: Quick, multidisciplinary measure of communication

Hope: More SLPs and audiologists will be included on CP research teams

WHO ICF Model

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)

Health Condition

(Disorder or Disease)

Body Functions

& Structures

Activity Participation

Environmental

Factors

Personal

Factors

WHO, 2001

WHO ICF Model: 3 perspectives on assessment and intervention

1.

body structure and function – anatomy & physiology includes language subsystems

2.

daily activities – carrying out tasks such as communication

3.

participation in home, school, work and/or community

Also consider interactions with

personal factors

 (e.g., age, motivation, desires) and

environmental factors

 (e.g., settings of home or community, familiarity with communication partner)

ICF Body/Structure Function Level

Denes & Pinson, p.5

The Communication Model

= ICF Activities/Participation Levels

Sender

Communication

Environment

Receiver

Functional Limitations in

Daily Activities

Mobility

Palisano et al., 1997

 Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) www.canchild.ca/Portals/0/outcomes/pdf/GMFCS-ER.pdf

Handling Objects

Eliasson et al., 2006

Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy 4-18 years www.macs.nu/

 Communication

Hidecker et al., under development

 Communication Function Classification System (CFCS ) www.cfcs.us/

 Eating/Drooling

Sellers et al., under development Manchester U.K.

Comparison of Classification Tools

GMFCS MACS CFCS

Level Mobility

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

Handling objects Communicating

Walks without limitations.

Walks with limitations.

Walks using a hand-held mobility device.

Handles objects easily and successfully.

Handles most objects but with somewhat reduced quality and/or spread of achievement.

Handles objects with difficulty; needs help to prepare and/or modify activities.

Self-mobility with limitations;

May use powered mobility.

Handles a limited selection of easily managed objects in adapted situations.

Transported in

Does not handle objects and has severely limited a manual ability to perform even wheelchair. simple actions.

Effective sender/receiver with unfamiliar and familiar partners

Effective but slower sender/receiver with unfamiliar and familiar partners

Effective sender/receiver with familiar partners

Inconsistent sender and/or receiver with familiar partners

Seldom effective sender/receiver even with familiar partners

Purpose of CFCS

 Communication classification tool in CP clinical and research settings

Grounded in SLP and audiology literature

Understandable to all interested in CP

Valid and reliable

Easily administered with other protocols

Will not replace existing communication assessments

Method – 4 Phases

1.

Development

2.

Nominal Groups

3.

Delphi Surveys

4.

Reliability

CFCS Development

• 8 Stakeholder groups

• Adults with CP

• Educators

• Neurologist

• Occupational Therapists

• Parents of children with CP

• Pediatricians

• Physical Therapists

• Speech-Language Pathologists

Participants

Stakeholder Groups

Adults with CP

Educators

Neurologists

Occupational Therapists

Parents of

Children with CP

Pediatricians

Physical Therapists

Speech-Language

Pathologists/Researchers

Others

N*

Development

Team

Nominal

Group

Delphi

Survey

Round 1

Delphi

Survey

Round 2

1 (9%) 3 (11%) 16 (14%) 12 (17%)

1 (9%) 4 (15%) 8 (7%) 5 (7%)

1 (9%) 1 (4%) 5 (5%) 5 (7%)

2 (18%) 2 (7%) 8 (7%) 3 (4%)

1 (9%)

2 (18%)

1 (9%)

3 (27%)

----------

11

4 (15%)

3 (11%)

3 (11%)

7 (26%)

4 (15%)

27

7 (6%)

13 (12%)

11 (10%)

4 (6%)

8 (12%)

5 (7%)

42 (38%) 28 (41%)

24 (21%) 13 (19%)

112 69

Results

Delphi Survey Questions

Round 1 Round 2

Yes No Yes No

Did you have a good idea of what the scope of the CFCS was when you read the bullet points?

Do the instructions make sense?

Do the definitions and explanations make sense?

For Level I, is the wording clear?

Is the wording of Level II clear?

Is the wording of Level III clear?

Is the wording of Level IV clear?

97% 3%

94% 6%

95% 5%

92% 8%

94% 6%

95% 5%

94% 6%

Is the wording of Level V clear?

Are there any two levels which might be hard to tell apart or have some overlap?

98% 2%

Are the functional communication abilities and limitations of individuals with cerebral palsy sufficiently identified within the 93% 7% levels of the CFCS?

36% 64% 10% 90%

Reliability

Professional inter rater (n=69)

Parent-professional inter rater

• Parents/Family members (n=68)

• Professionals (n=61)

Test-retest (n=48 professionals)

Professional Inter rater Reliability

CFCS I

Professional 1

II III IV V

III

IV

I

II

V

3

1

5

2

5

2

2

3

7

2

6

17

4

1

13

Weighted kappa=.66 (95% CI. 55-.77); Increases to .77 for kids > 4 years

III

IV

I

II

V

Parent-Professional

Inter rater Reliability

Professional

CFCS I II III IV

10

7

6

1

4

9

9

4

3

9

2

12

7

24

2

Weighted kappa=.49 (95% CI .39-.58)

V

11

11

1

6

Professional Test-Retest Reliability

CFCS I II

Time 2

III IV V

III

IV

I

II

V

11 2

7

1

3

11 7

21

1

2

3

20

Weighted kappa=.82 (95% CI .74-.90)

Cooley

Hidecker et al., 2009

Cooley

Hidecker et al., 2009

Cooley

Hidecker et al., 2009

Current CFCS Draft

Cooley

Hidecker et al., 2009

CFCS Level Identification Chart

Hidecker et al. Please do not use without permission

Clinical Implications

 Accessible, common tool that can be used by both parents and professionals.

 Useful when talking with families and other professionals.

 Support understanding among various members of multidisciplinary teams.

Clinical Implications –

examples

Knowing a person’s CFCS classification may suggest a starting point for intervention

(we still need clinical research evidence)

Level I – Any activity or participation limitations?

Decrease any residual speech sound errors?

Level II – Any ways to speed up communication, especially with unfamiliar partners? Can repair strategies be improved? Can AAC access/composing methods be faster?

Clinical Implications – examples

Level III – Increase communication partners? Improve communication repair strategies? Add AAC?

Level IV – Increase sender and/or receiver skills?

Add AAC?

Level V – Improve partner recognition of gestures and unconventional messages?

Focus on communication partner training.

 Create a communication dictionary of these unconventional message.

 Pair AAC message with unconventional message.

Current research directions

Measure the CFCS stability across the life span

.

 Need research partners who serve individuals with CP from age 2 to 21

 Will classify CFCS and collect additional data over the course of 4 years

Current research directions

 CFCS to cerebral palsy registries’ data?

 Surveillance of CP in Europe (SCPE)

 Translate/validate CFCS in languages

 Currently underway

 Arabic

 Dutch

• Translation Interests

• ?????

 Turkish

 Need Spanish partners

Future research directions

 Create a snapshot of a person’s functional levels by reporting the CFCS in conjunction with GMFCS & MACS.

 Correlate the CFCS level to quality of life and/or participation measures.

Future research directions

 Validate the CFCS in other populations including those with autism, Down syndrome, and post-stroke.

 Study the possible effect of additional

AAC components and operational competencies on CFCS Levels.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the individuals who participated:

 In addition to those who chose to contribute anonymously,

Development Team: Sally Bucrek, Kipp Chillag, DO, Ann-Christin Eliasson, PhD, Maria S. French, PhD, Lisa

Herren, Rebecca Jones, PhD, Lena Krumlinde-Sundholm, PhD

Nominal Group: Deena Agree, George Baker, Lisa Bardach, Lehua Beamon, Susan Davenport, Denise

Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth A. Fox, Barb Galuppi, Jonathon Gold, Clare Jorgensen, Marilyn Kertoy, John Lawton,

Michael Livingston, Rhonda Massa, Jeanette Miller, Chris Morris, Nancy Novakoski, Krista Richardson, Cindy J.

Russell, Dianne Russell, Geraldine Schram, Dennis Schroeder, Becky Schroeder, Yakov Sigal, Nancy Thomas-

Stonell, David VanDyke, Lynna M. Walta, Kristin J. Whitfield

Delphi Survey: Janet H. Allaire, Ilona Autti-Rämö, Rita L. Bailey, Simona Bar-Haim, David Bauer, Kristie

Bjornson, PhD, PT, Timothy J Brei, MD, Wendy Burdo-Hartman, MD, Megan Carter, Michael Collis, Cynthia

Cress, Diane L. Damiano, Pamela K. De Loach, Leo V. Deal, Shelley Deegan, Steven T DeRoos, MD, Cindy

DeYoung, Laura Drower M.S., SLP, Joseph R. Duffy, Stephanie Farnham OTR, James W. Fee, Jr., Iris Fishman,

Deb Gaebler, Gay L. Girolami, PT, MS, Jan Willem Gorter, MD PhD, Kate Himmelmann, Megan M. Hodge, Tara

Kehoe, Debora K. Kerr, Barbara A. Krampac, MS CCC/SLP-L, Nicole Lomerson, Mary Ann Lowe, Valerie

Maples, Jill Meilahn, D.O., Michael E. Msall, MD, Susan Murr, Dana Overhake, Robert J. Palisano, Carol Palk,

Lindsay Pennington, Judy Phelps, OTR, Matthew Phillips, Margaret R. Poore, SLP/AAC Specialist, Dinah

Reddihough, Tom J Reed, Dr. Gina Rempel, James M Renuk, Bernadette Robertson, Cheryl Robins, Sharon

Rogers, Lynn Rothman, Julie Scherz, Diane Dudas Sheehan, Kevin Vance, Candace Hill Vegter, Jo Watson, Ellen

Wood, Marilyn Seif Workinger, PhD, Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, MD

Reliability Sites: BC Centre for Ability (Vancouver, British Columbia), Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital

(Grand Rapids, Michigan), Gillette Children’s Hospital (St. Paul, Minnesota), Marshfield Clinic (Marshfield,

Wisconsin), Seattle Children’s Hospital (Seattle, Washington), Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (Chicago,

Illinois)

Research Team: Aliah Alsarraf, Megan Bigalke, Kenneth Chester, Stephanie Currier, Kristen Darga, Julie Fisk,

Kelly Gowryluk, Carly Hanna, Brenda Johnson, Lauren Klee, Lauren Klier, Jenny Koivisto, Lauren Michalsen,

Hye Sung Park, Sarah Parker, Tiffany Quast, Kristen Raabis, Marliese Sharp, Archie Soelaeman, Katie

VanLandschoot, Lauren Werner, Jacqueline Wilson

This research is supported in part by an NIH postdoctoral fellowship (NIDCD 5F32DC008265-02) as well as grants from the Cerebral Palsy International Research Foundation and The Hearst Foundation.

1

References

World Health Organization. (2001) International classification of functioning,

disability and health : ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization.

2 World Health Organization. (2007) International classification of functioning,

disability, and health : children & youth version : ICF-CY. Geneva: World Health

Organization.

3 Raghavendra P, Bornman J, Granlund M, Björck-Åkesson E. (2007) The World

Health Organization's international classification of functioning, disability and health: implications for clinical and research practice in the field of augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 23:

349 - 61.

4 Hidecker MJC, Paneth N, Rosenbaum P, Kent RD, Lillie J, Johnson B, Chester K.

(2009) Development of the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) for individuals with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology

51(Suppl2): 48.

5 Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, Russell D, Wood E, Galuppi B. (1997)

Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 39: 214-23.

6 Eliasson AC, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Rosblad B, Beckung E, Arner M, Ohrvall AM,

Rosenbaum P. (2006) The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Dev

Med Child Neurol 48: 549-54.

Contact us

Mary Jo Cooley Hidecker

MJCHidecker@uca.edu

 Accepting graduate and postdoctoral students

 CFCS Website http://cfcs.us

 Updated presentation slides will be posted at http://faculty.uca.edu/mjchidecker

Download