Development and validation of the Dysarthria Impact Scale
Vogel, A. P.; Graf, L.; Gauss, M.; Chan, J. S. J.; Hepworth, G.; Synofzik, M.
Show abstract
BackgroundImpaired speech due to dysarthria significantly impacts quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer critical insight into the lived experience of communication disability and are increasingly central to regulatory frameworks for patient-focused drug development. ObjectivesTo develop and validate the Dysarthria Impact Scale (DIS), a brief PRO designed to assess the impact of motor speech disorders on quality of life across neurological conditions. MethodsA multi-site, cross-sectional study was conducted with 244 participants, including individuals with Huntingtons disease, Parkinsons disease, hereditary ataxias, and head and neck cancer, along with healthy controls. The 22-item DIS was developed using expert input and patient feedback and evaluated alongside reference tools (Voice Handicap Index and SF-36). Item reduction procedures yielded two shorter versions (DIS-17 and DIS-6). Validity, reliability, and sensitivity/specificity analyses were performed, and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) were estimated using distribution-based methods. ResultsAll DIS versions showed strong convergent validity with the VHI (r = -0.85) and SF-36 (r = 0.72) and were correlated with blinded perceptual speech ratings. DIS-17 and DIS-6 achieved comparable sensitivity (0.93 and 0.88) and specificity (0.84 and 0.86, respectively). Test-retest reliability was high (r = 0.98), with WSSD estimates ranging from 4.0 to 10.6 across groups. Estimated MCIDs ranged from 5 to 15 points. Group differences were observed, with lower DIS scores in ataxia and Parkinsons disease compared to Huntingtons disease. ConclusionsThe DIS is a valid, reliable, and practical PRO for quantifying the impact of dysarthria on quality of life. It is suitable for clinical monitoring and clinical trial use, with sensitivity to disease-related variation and change.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated detection of speech timing alterations in autopsy-confirmed non-fluent/agrammatic variant primary progressive aphasia 93%
- Primary progressive aphasia in Italian and English: a cross-linguistic cohort study 93%
- Lexical and acoustic speech features relating to Alzheimer’s disease pathology 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Resting-state alpha reactivity is reduced in Parkinson disease and associated with gait variability 92%
- Pre-frontal cortical activity during gait is altered in pre-manifest and early spinocerebellar ataxia 91%
- Does Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation Impact Asymmetry and Dyscoordination of Gait in Parkinson’s Disease? 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Nusinersen in adult patients with 5q spinal muscular atrophy: a multicenter observational cohorts’ study 92%
- Diagnostic accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers for the differential diagnosis of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: a (network) meta-analysis 90%
- Post-COVID-Syndrome patients might overestimate own cognitive impairment 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Remote monitoring of progression in early Parkinson’s disease: reliability and validity of the Roche PD Mobile Application v2 94%
- A novel method to assess motor planning deficits in patients with Parkinson's disease and mild cognitive impairment 92%
- Developing and Validating a New Web-Based Tapping Test for Measuring Distal Bradykinesia in Parkinson's Disease 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.