Development and Content Validation of the CEECCA Questionnaire to Assess Ability to Communicate among Individuals with Aphasia Based on the NANDA-I and NOC
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
- (a)
- Experience in caring for individuals with aphasia.
- (b)
- Accredited training in the care of individuals with aphasia.
- (c)
- Teaching or research experience related to the care of individuals with aphasia.
- (d)
- Clinical, teaching, or research experience in the care of individuals with acquired brain damage.
- (e)
- Accredited training in effective communication techniques.
- (f)
- Clinical, teaching, or research experience in the use of SNLs.
- (g)
- Participating or having participated in working groups or expert groups in nursing methodology.
2.2. Phases of Development
2.2.1. Phase 1. Generation of Dimensions, Areas, and Items. A Two-Part Analysis Was Carried out to Select the Dimensions for the Initial Questionnaire
- −
- “Impaired verbal communication” (00051): Decreased, delayed, or absent ability to receive, process, transmit, and/or use a system of symbols;
- −
- “Readiness for enhanced communication” (00157): A pattern of exchanging information and ideas with others, which can be strengthened.
- −
- “Communication” (0902): Reception, interpretation, and expression of spoken, written, and non-verbal messages;
- −
- “Communication: Expressive” (0903): Expression of meaningful verbal and/or non-verbal messages;
- −
- “Communication: Receptive” (0904): Reception and interpretation of verbal and/or non-verbal messages;
- −
- “Information Processing” (0907): Ability to acquire, organise, and use information.
2.2.2. Face and Content Validity
2.2.3. Pilot Test
2.3. Variables
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Phase 1
3.2. Phase 2
- −
- The area “Expression through drawings, illustrations, and icons” was renamed “Expression through pictograms” to more accurately represent the task at hand.
- −
- A new item, scissors, was added to the area “Naming objects verbally”, increasing the number of semantic categories represented.
- −
- In the area “Naming actions verbally”, item 12, urinating, was replaced by a new pictogram representing the action of combing one’s hair in order to avoid sex-based differences.
3.3. Phase 3
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Berthier, M.L. Poststroke Aphasia. Drugs Aging 2005, 22, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McNeil, M.R.; Pratt, S.R. Defining aphasia: Some theoretical and clinical implications of operating from a formal definition. Aphasiology 2001, 15, 901–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engelter, S.T.; Gostynski, M.; Papa, S.; Frei, M.; Born, C.; Ajdacic-Gross, V.; Gutzwiller, F.; Lyrer, P.A. Epidemiology of Aphasia Attributable to First Ischemic Stroke. Stroke 2006, 37, 1379–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gil, R. Neuropsicología; Elsevier: Barcelona, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bersano, A.; Burgio, F.; Gattinoni, M.; Candelise, L. Aphasia Burden to Hospitalised Acute Stroke Patients: Need for an Early Rehabilitation Programme. Int. J. Stroke 2009, 4, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauhanen, M.-L.; Korpelainen, J.T.; Hiltunen, P.; Määttä, R.; Mononen, H.; Brusin, E.; Sotaniemi, K.A.; Myllyla, V.V. Aphasia, Depression, and Non-Verbal Cognitive Impairment in Ischaemic Stroke. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2000. Available online: http://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/16107 (accessed on 27 June 2016).
- Pedersen, P.M.; Stig Jørgensen, H.; Nakayama, H.; Raaschou, H.O.; Olsen, T.S. Aphasia in Acute Stroke: Incidence, Determinants, and Recovery; Annals of Neurology. 1995. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.410380416/full (accessed on 27 June 2016).
- Dickey, L.; Kagan, A.; Lindsay, M.P.; Fang, J.; Rowland, A.; Black, S. Incidence and Profile of Inpatient Stroke-Induced Aphasia in Ontario, Canada. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2010, 91, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Code, C. The quantity of life for people with chronic aphasia. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 2003, 13, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilari, K.; Needle, J.; Harrison, K.L. What Are the Important Factors in Health-Related Quality of Life for People with Aphasia? A Systematic Review. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 93, S86–S95.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niemi, T.; Johansson, U. The lived experience of engaging in everyday occupations in persons with mild to moderate aphasia. Disabil. Rehabil. 2013, 35, 1828–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charmaz, K. Loss of self: A fundamental form of suffering in the chronically ill. Sociol. Health Illn. 1983, 5, 168–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pound, C. Beyond Aphasia: Therapies for Living with Communication Disability; Winslow Press: Cape Coral, FL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Gordon, C.; Ellis-Hill, C.; Ashburn, A. The use of conversational analysis: Nurse-patient interaction in communication disability after stroke. J. Adv. Nurs. 2009, 65, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finke, E.H.; Light, J.; Kitko, L. A systematic review of the effectiveness of nurse communication with patients with complex communication needs with a focus on the use of augmentative and alternative communication. J. Clin. Nurs. 2008, 17, 2102–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, J.; McKeever, M. The impact of stroke aphasia on health and well-being and appropriate nursing interventions: An exploration using the Theory of Human Scale Development. J. Clin. Nurs. 2012, 23, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lendínez Mesa, A.; Sociedad Española de Enfermería Neurológica. Enfermería en Neurorrehabilitación: Empoderando el Autocuidado; Lendínez Mesa, A., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Brito Brito, P.R. Redes y Diagnósticos Enfermeros; Circulo Cultural y Recreativo de El Ejido: El Ejido, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Poslawsky, I.E.; Schuurmans, M.J.; Lindeman, E.; Hafsteinsdottir, T.B. A systematic review of nursing rehabilitation of stroke patients with aphasia. J. Clin. Nurs. 2010, 19, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tirado Pedregosa, G.; Hueso Montoro, C.; Cuevas Fernández-Gallego, M.; Montoya Juárez, R.; Bonill de las Nieves, C.; Schmidt Río-del Valle, J. Cómo escribir un caso clínico en Enfermería utilizando Taxonomía NANDA, NOC, NIC. Index de Enfermería. 2011. Available online: http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1132-12962011000100023&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es (accessed on 2 May 2016).
- Brtio-Brito, P.R. Investigación sobre el proceso de valoración enfermera. In Investigación en Metodología y Lenguajes Enfermeros; Echevarría-Pérez, P., Ed.; Elsevier: Barcelona, Spain, 2016; pp. 159–170. [Google Scholar]
- Herdman, H.T.; Kamitsuru, S. NANDA International Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions & Classification 2018–2020; Thieme Publishers: New York, NY, USA; Stuttgart, Germany, 2017; p. 581. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, M.; Maas, M.L. Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC): Measurement of Health Outcomes; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; p. 696. [Google Scholar]
- Butcher, H.K.; Bulechek, G.M.; Dochterman, J.M.; Wagner, C.M. Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC); Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; p. 489. [Google Scholar]
- NANDA International. Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions and Classification: 2012–2014; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2012; p. 533. [Google Scholar]
- Müller-Staub, M.; Lavin, M.A.; Needham, I.; van Achterberg, T. Meeting the criteria of a nursing diagnosis classification: Evaluation of ICNP®, ICF, NANDA and ZEFP. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2007, 44, 702–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorhead, S. (Ed.) Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC): Measurement of Health Outcomes, 5th ed.; Elsevier: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2013; p. 751. [Google Scholar]
- Goodglass, H.; Kaplan, E.; Wernicke, C. Evaluación de la Afasia l le Transtornos Relacionados; Médica Panamericana: Madrid, Spain, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- López, E.B. Análisis Empírico de las Características Formales de los Símbolos Pictográficos Arasaac. 2017. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=154984 (accessed on 30 March 2019).
- Pérez, M.A.; Navalón, C. Nomas españolas de 290 nuevos dibujos: Acuerdo en la denominación, concordancia de la imagen, familiaridad, complejidad visual y variabilidad de la imagen. Psicológica 2003, 24, 215–241. [Google Scholar]
- Palao, S. Símbolos Pictográficos para CATEDU; ARASAAC: Gobiero de Aragón: Licencia CC (BY-NC-SA). 2021. Available online: http://old.arasaac.org/pictogramas_byn.php (accessed on 26 October 2019).
- Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, 9th ed.; Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012; p. 802. [Google Scholar]
- Polit, D.F.; Hungler, B.P.; Palacios Martínez, R.; Féher de la Torre, G. Investigación Científica en Ciencias de la Salud: Principios y Métodos, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill Interamericana: México City, Mexico, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Lawshe, C.H. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers. Psychol. 1975, 28, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enderby, P.M.; Wood, V.A.; Wade, D.T.; Hewer, R.L. The Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test: A short, simple test for aphasia appropriate for non-specialists. Int. Rehabil. Med. 1987, 8, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thommessen, B.; Thoresen, G.E.; Bautz-Holter, E.; Laake, K. Screening by nurses for aphasia in stroke—The Ullevaal Aphasia Screening (UAS) test. Disabil. Rehabil. 1999, 21, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakase-Thompson, R.; Manning, E.; Sherer, M.; Yablon, S.A.; Gontkovsky, S.L.T.; Vickery, C. Brief assessment of severe language impairments: Initial validation of the Mississippi aphasia screening test. Brain Inj. 2005, 19, 685–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabe, L.; Courtis, M.J.; Saavedra, M.M.; Prodan, V.; Calcagno, M.d.L.; Melián, S. Desarrollo y validación de una batería corta de evaluación de la afasia: Bedside de lenguaje: Utilización en un centro de rehabilitación. Rev. Neurol. 2008, 46, 454–460. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2577397 (accessed on 29 July 2017). [CrossRef]
- Flamand-Roze, C.; Falissard, B.; Roze, E.; Maintigneux, L.; Beziz, J.; Chacon, A.; Join-Lambert, C.; Adams, D.; Denier, C. Validation of a New Language Screening Tool for Patients with Acute Stroke. Stroke 2011, 42, 1224–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Espinoza, M.Á.L.; Chávez, R.P.; Jiménez, L.M. Propiedades psicométricas y utilidad diagnóstica del “screening léxico para las afasias”. Rev. Neurol. 2014, 59, 255–263. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4797962 (accessed on 11 July 2017).
- Adrián, J.A.; Jorquera, J.; Cuetos, F. NEUROBEL: Breve batería neuropsicológica de evaluación del lenguaje oral en adultos-mayores. Datos normativos iniciales. Rev. Logop. Foniatr. Audiol. 2015, 35, 101–113. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0214460315000066 (accessed on 11 July 2017). [CrossRef]
- Romero, M.; Sánchez, A.; Marín, C.; Navarro, M.D.; Ferri, J.; Noé, E. Utilidad clínica de la versión en castellano del Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test (MASTsp): Validación en pacientes con ictus. Neurología 2012, 27, 216–224. Available online: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0213485311002659 (accessed on 27 June 2017). [CrossRef]
- Cuetos, F. Evaluación y Rehabilitación de las Afasias: Aproximación Cognitiva; Editorial Médica Panamericana: Madrid, Spain, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- González Lázaro, P.; González Ortuño, B. Afasia: De la Teoría a la Práctica; Editorial Medica Panamericana: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Coronas Puig-Pallarols, M.; Basil Almirall, C. Comunicación aumentativa y alternativa para personas con afasia. Rev. Logop. Foniatr. Audiol. 2013, 33, 126–135. Available online: http://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-revista-logopedia-foniatria-audiologia-309-articulo-comunicacion-aumentativa-alternativa-personas-con-S0214460312000940 (accessed on 14 February 2020). [CrossRef]
- Koul, R.J.; Corwin, M. Efficacy of ACC intervention in individuals with chronic severe aphasia. In The Efficacy of Augmentative and Alternative Communication; Schlosser, R.W., Ed.; Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Boston, FL, USA, 2003; pp. 449–466. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, K.M.; Weiss, S.J.; Garrett, K.L.; Lloyd, L.L. The Effect of Remnant and Pictographic Books on the Communicative Interaction of Individuals with Global Aphasia. Augment. Altern. Commun. 2005, 21, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brito-Brito, P.R.; Rodríguez-Álvarez, C.; Sierra-López, A.; Rodríguez-Gómez, J.Á.; Aguirre-Jaime, A. Diseño y validación de un cuestionario para el diagnóstico enfermero psicosocial en Atención Primaria. Enferm. Clin. 2012, 22, 126–134. Available online: http://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-enfermeria-clinica-35-articulo-diseno-validacion-un-cuestionario-el-S1130862112000447 (accessed on 1 November 2020). [CrossRef]
- Paloma-Castro, O.; Romero-Sánchez, J.M.; Paramio-Cuevas, J.C.; Pastor-Montero, S.M.; Sánchez-Dalda, M.D.C.; Royadillas-Sanmiguel, E.; Morreno-Corral, L.J. Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Questionnaire Based on the Nursing Outcomes Classification to Determine the Knowledge of Parents on Breast-Feeding: Research Protocol. Int. J. Nurs. Knowl. 2015, 28, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brito-Brito, P.R.; Martín-García, A.; Oter-Quintana, C.; Paloma-Castro, O.; Romero-Sánchez, J.M. CoNOCidiet-Diabetes Research Group Development and Content Validation of a NOC-Based Instrument for Measuring Dietary Knowledge in Patients with Diabetes: CoNOCidiet-Diabetes. Int. J. Nurs. Knowl. 2019, 31, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kertesz, A. Batería de Afasias “Western”: The Western Aphasia Battery en Versión y Adaptación Castellana; NAU Llibres: Valencia, Spain, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Brady, M.C.; Fredrick, A.; Williams, B. People with Aphasia: Capacity to Consent, Research Participation and Intervention Inequalities. Int. J. Stroke 2012, 8, 193–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
NANDA-I Diagnoses | NOC Outcome Criteria | Resulting Language Dimensions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impaired Verbal Communication (00051) | Readiness for Enhanced Communication (00157) | Communication (0902) | Communication: Expressive (0903) | Communication: Receptive (0904) | Information Processing (0907) | |
Defining Characteristics | NOC Outcome Indicators | |||||
|
|
|
|
| Verbal expression | |
|
|
|
| Auditory comprehension | ||
| Naming skills | |||||
|
|
| Written expression | |||
| Reading comprehension | |||||
|
|
|
| Facial and body expression | ||
|
| Comprehension of facial and body language | ||||
|
| Expression through symbols, illustrations, and icons | ||||
| Language comprehension through symbols, illustrations, and icons |
Dimensions in the Preliminary Questionnaire | Areas and Items in the Preliminary Questionnaire | CVI/RI Values for Each Area and Item in the Preliminary Questionnaire | Areas and Items in the Final Questionnaire | CVI/RI Values for Each Area and Item in the Final Questionnaire | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Verbal expression |
| 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 0.91 1.00 0.82 0.73 0.82 | 0.91 0.91 0.82 0.82 0.82 |
| 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.82 0.91 | 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.82 0.91 | |
| 0.82 | 0.82 |
| 1.00 | 0.91 | |
| 0.82 | 0.73 |
| 0.91 | 0.91 | |
| 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 | |
| 0.91 | 0.91 |
| 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| 0.91 0.91 0.82 | 0.91 0.91 0.73 |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.82 0.91 0.91 | |
Written expression |
| 0.73 | 0.73 |
| 0.82 | 0.82 |
| 0.73 | 0.91 |
| 0.91 | 0.91 | |
| 0.73 | 0.82 |
| 0.91 | 0.91 | |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 | |
| 0.91 | 0.91 |
| 0.91 | 0.91 | |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 | |
Expression through symbols, illustrations, and icons Expression through pictograms |
| 0.91 | 0.91 |
| 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 | |
| 0.91 | 0.82 |
| 0.91 | 0.91 | |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 | |
Auditory comprehension |
| 1.00 | 0.91 |
| 1.00 | 0.82 |
| 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 | 0.91 0.91 0.73 0.91 0.91 |
| 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 | 0.91 0.91 0.82 0.82 0.82 | |
| 1.00 | 0.82 | ||||
| 0.91 1.00 1.00 | 0.91 1.00 1.00 | ||||
| 1.00 | 0.91 |
| 1.00 | 0.91 | |
| 1.00 1.00 1.00 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 |
| 1.00 1.00 1.00 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 | |
Reading comprehension |
| 0.91 | 0.91 |
| 1.00 | 0.82 |
| 0.91 0.91 0.82 | 0.91 0.91 0.82 |
| 0.82 0.91 0.91 | 0.82 0.91 0.91 | |
| 0.91 | 0.91 |
| 0.91 | 0.82 | |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 |
| 0.91 0.91 0.91 | 0.91 0.91 0.91 | |
Overall CVI/Overall RI | 0.90 | 0.89 | Overall CVI/Overall RI | 0.90 | 0.90 |
Participant (Code) | Sex | Age (Years) | Level of Education | Place of Assessment | Type of Aphasia | Aphasia Aetiology | Previous Reading Level | Previous Writing Level | Level of Severity (0–5) Severity Scale: the Boston Test |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | Male | 51 | Vocational training | CREN Rehabilitation Centre | Motor aphasia | Ischaemic CVA | Good | Good | 1 |
A2 | Female | 81 | University education | CREN Rehabilitation Centre | Transcortical motor aphasia | Ischaemic CVA | Very good | Very good | 3 |
A3 | Male | 58 | Vocational training | CREN Rehabilitation Centre | Transcortical sensory aphasia | Haemorrhagic CVA | Good | Good | 2 |
A4 | Female | 78 | Primary education | CREN Rehabilitation Centre | Global aphasia | Ischaemic CVA | Good | Good | 0 |
A5 | Female | 44 | University education | CREN Rehabilitation Centre | Anomic aphasia | Haemorrhagic CVA | Good | Good | 4 |
A6 | Male | 74 | Primary education | Nuestra Señora de Candelaria University Hospital | Transcortical sensory aphasia | Brain tumour | Average | Average | 4 |
A7 | Male | 58 | University education | CREN Rehabilitation Centre | Motor aphasia | CNS infection | Very good | Very good | 2 |
A8 | Female | 78 | Primary education | Primary care | Anomic motor aphasia | Ischaemic CVA | Average | Average | 1 |
Dimensions | Areas in the Preliminary CEECCA Questionnaire | Items | Diagnostic Label Assignment Criteria | Diagnostic Labels | Area Dysfunctionality (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Verbal expression | Conversational speech | Items 1–5 | If two or more responses are dysfunctional | Impaired verbal communication: Conversational speech | 33.3 |
Descriptive speech | Item 6 | If the response is dysfunctional | Impaired verbal communication: Descriptive speech | 83.3 | |
Naming objects verbally | Items 7–10 | If two or more responses are dysfunctional | Impaired verbal naming: Objects | 50.0 | |
Naming actions verbally | Items 11–13 | Impaired verbal naming: Actions | 50.0 | ||
Written expression | Writing name and surname(s) | Item 14 | If the response is dysfunctional | Impaired written expression: Writing name | 83.3 |
Naming objects in writing | Items 15–17 | If two or more responses are dysfunctional | Impaired written naming: Objects | 66.7 | |
Naming actions in writing | Items 18–20 | Impaired written naming: Actions | 83.3 | ||
Expression through pictograms | Expressing actions through pictograms | Items 21–23 | If two or more responses are dysfunctional | Impaired expression through pictograms: Actions | 16.7 |
Expressing emotions through pictograms | Items 24–26 | Impaired expression through pictograms: Emotions | 16.7 | ||
Auditory comprehension | Auditory comprehension of words | Items 27–31 | If two or more responses are dysfunctional | Impaired auditory comprehension: Words | 83.3 |
Auditory comprehension of sentences | Items 32–34 | If two or more responses are dysfunctional; a dysfunctional response if item 32 is involved | Impaired auditory comprehension: Sentences | 66.7 | |
Auditory comprehension of commands | Item 35–37 | If two or more responses are dysfunctional; a dysfunctional response if item 35 is involved | Impaired auditory comprehension: Verbal commands | 50.0 | |
Reading comprehension | Reading comprehension of words | Items 38–40 | If two or more responses are dysfunctional | Impaired reading comprehension: Words | 33.3 |
Reading comprehension of sentences | Items 41–43 | Impaired reading comprehension: Sentences | 66.7 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Martín-Dorta, W.-J.; Brito-Brito, P.-R.; García-Hernández, A.-M. Development and Content Validation of the CEECCA Questionnaire to Assess Ability to Communicate among Individuals with Aphasia Based on the NANDA-I and NOC. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1459. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9111459
Martín-Dorta W-J, Brito-Brito P-R, García-Hernández A-M. Development and Content Validation of the CEECCA Questionnaire to Assess Ability to Communicate among Individuals with Aphasia Based on the NANDA-I and NOC. Healthcare. 2021; 9(11):1459. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9111459
Chicago/Turabian StyleMartín-Dorta, Willian-Jesús, Pedro-Ruymán Brito-Brito, and Alfonso-Miguel García-Hernández. 2021. "Development and Content Validation of the CEECCA Questionnaire to Assess Ability to Communicate among Individuals with Aphasia Based on the NANDA-I and NOC" Healthcare 9, no. 11: 1459. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9111459