Communication Function Classification System (CFCS)

2,669 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,669
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • <number>
    Other: 2 researchers, 1 orthotist, 1 aunt of 2 nieces with CP. (some people had multiple roles)
  • <number>
  • http://youtube.com/watch?v=lFMLL6A7K0U Level 1 comic Josh Blue
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAdEOXD9Tvk Level 2 Ellen college student uses Pathfinder
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_UjzYmypA Level 3? Jenna ages 2-4 (from 1:45 min to 3 min)
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=CiHxAQhkijk Level 4/5 Bryclen
    Bryclen is hard to figure out from a short segment, but I think he is following Mom’s directions and answering her questions with behaviors and eye gaze so maybe he’s competent receiver, but ineffective sender?
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=IUSk5RiFNUc Level 1 26 yr old hemiplegia (right side) start @ 6 min
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlC8G5nNE7k Level 2 Sara college student uses Dynavox
  • Other ideas? Agree or disagree with these starting points?
  • Other ideas? Agree or disagree with these starting points?
  • We am very much indebted to many people who are making this research possible.
  • Communication Function Classification System (CFCS)

    1. 1. 1 Communication FunctionCommunication Function Classification System (CFCS)Classification System (CFCS) for Individuals with Cerebral Palsyfor Individuals with Cerebral Palsy Mary Jo Cooley Hidecker, PhD, CCC-A/SLPa,b   Ray Kent, PhDc Nigel Paneth, MD, MPHb Peter Rosenbaum, MD, FRCP(C)d John B. Eulenberg, PhDa Julie Fisk, MA, CFY-SLPe Brenda Wickline Johnson, B.S.a,b Sally Bucrek, PTf Rebecca S. Jones, PhD, CCC-SLPg a Communicative Sciences & Disorders, b Epidemiology, Michigan State University c Communicative Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison d CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada e Ingham Regional Medical Center, Lansing, MI f Ingham Intermediate School District-Early On Program, Lansing, MI g Private Practice, Holt, MI
    2. 2. 2 Today’s Focus 1. Describing the Research Problem 2. Creating the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) for individuals with cerebral palsy 3. Using the CFCS 4. Discussing Next Steps
    3. 3. 3 Cerebral Palsy Definition “describes a group of permanent disorders of the development of movement and posture, causing activity limitations, that are attributed to non- progressive 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)
    4. 4. 4 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)
    5. 5. 5 Cerebral Palsy  Affects 1 in 500 children born each year Stanley et al. (2003), Odding et al. (2006), Paneth et al. (2006)  Lifetime cost estimated at $1 million per individual with CP MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep (2004).  Clinical diagnosis by physician (often a neurologist)  Gross & fine motor problems  Resulting from non-progressive neural damage to the baby during pregnancy and perinatal period  There is no specific biomedical test for CP
    6. 6. 6 Cerebral Palsy Classifications  By type of movement  Spastic CP  Stiff, contracted muscles  70 to 80%  Athetoid or dyskinetic CP  uncontrolled, slow, writhing movements  10 to 20%  Ataxic CP  walk unsteadily  poor coordination and balance  5 to 10%  Mixed forms  By type of tone  Hypertonicity  Stiff, rigid  Hypotonicity  Floppy, loose  Changing  By limb involvement  Hemiplegia  Arm & Leg on same side of body (R or L)  Diplegia  Arms and Legs but legs more involved  Quadriplegia orTetraplegia  Arms and Legs equally involved OR Arms more involved than legs  Remaining terms describe rare limb patterns  Monoplegia  One limb  Triplegia  Three limbs  Paraplegia  Only legs involved
    7. 7. WHO ICF Model The World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) WHO, 2002
    8. 8. 8 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)
    9. 9. The Speech Chain = ICF Body/Structure Function Level Denes & Pinson, p.5
    10. 10. 10 The Communication Model = ICF Activities/Participation Levels Sende r Receive r Communication Environment
    11. 11. 11 How many individuals with CP have communication problems?  “Up to 80%...have at least some impairment of speech” Odding, et al (2006)  Flawed numbers for a variety of reasons  No indication of the basis for the numbers  30% have “hearing, speech, and language impairments” Pellegrino (2002)  No operational definitions  58% with “communication problem” Bax et al (2006)  7% with “hearing problem” Bax et al (2006)  Confusing definitions  Hearing “> 70 decibels in better ear” Colver & SPARCLE (2006)
    12. 12. 12 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
    13. 13. 13 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
    14. 14. 14 Functional Limitations in Daily Activities may include:  Mobility  Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) www.canchild.ca/Portals/0/outcomes/pdf/GMFCS.pdf  Handling Objects  Manual Ability Classification System for children with cerebral palsy 4-18 years www.macs.nu/  Communication  Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) in validation and reliability phases  Eating/Drooling  ???????
    15. 15. 15 Purpose of CFCS research  To create a communication classification to be used in CP research and clinical settings  Must be grounded in speech-language pathology and audiology literature  Must be understandable to all interested in CP  Must be valid and reliable, yet short enough to be easily added to long protocols of measurements in multidisciplinary studies  Will not replace existing communication assessments
    16. 16. 16 Research Aims Using an interdisciplinary research approach, 1. Create descriptions for each CFCS level. 2. Examine content validity using nominal group and Delphi survey methodology. 3. Measure inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the CFCS among professional and lay team measures. 4. Produce a final version of CFCS suitable for cerebral palsy clinical and research settings.
    17. 17. 17 Participants from 8 stakeholder groups 1. Adults with CP 2. Parents of children with CP 3. Educators 4. Neurologists 5. Occupational Therapists 6. Pediatricians 7. Physical Therapists 8. Speech-Language Pathologists
    18. 18. 18 Method  4 Phases: 1.Development 2.Nominal groups 3.Delphi surveys 4.Reliability studies
    19. 19. 19 Development Team Members 1 Adult with CP/Educator 1 Parent of children with CP 1 Neurologist 2 Occupational Therapists 2 Pediatricians 1 Physical Therapist + 3 Speech-Language Pathologists 11 Development Team Members
    20. 20. 20 Nominal Group Process: 3 to 4 hr discussions on CFCS  27 participants (4 small groups)  19 Females  8 Males  26 Caucasians  1 Pacific Islander  Educational Background  7% High School degree  26% College degree  67% Some grad school or advanced degree  Years of CP Experience  8% <5 years  11% 5-10 years  81% +10 years  Type of Experience with CP  11% Adult with CP  15% Parent  15% Educator  7% O.T.  15% Physician  11% P.T.  26% SLP
    21. 21. 21 Nominal Group Process: Participant Demographics  Aware of communication disorders with CP?  89% aware of hearing Loss  85% aware of receptive communication disorders  85% aware of expressive communication disorders  100% aware of motor speech disorders  Familiar with augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)?  4% were not familiar with AAC  70% had seen people using AAC  48% work with AAC users  15% have family members that use/had use AAC  4% use AAC/had used AAC in past
    22. 22. 22 Current CFCS draft  5 everyday communication performance levels I. Effective Sender & Receiver with unfamiliar and familiar partners II. Effective Sender & Receiver, but slower conversational pace, with unfamiliar and familiar partners III. Effective Sender & Receiver with familiar partners IV. Sometimes Effective Sender & Receiver with familiar partners V. Seldom Effective Sender & Receiver with familiar partners
    23. 23. CFCS Level Identification Chart Please do not use without permission.
    24. 24. 24 Using the current CFCS  Use the CFCS to classify the following video clips  If you are willing to turn in your classifications anonymously, we would be interested to see how people use the system.
    25. 25. 25 Current CFCS draft  http://youtube.com/watch?v=lFMLL6A7K0U Josh  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAdEOXD9Tvk Ellen  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_UjzYmypA Jenna 4 yr  http://youtube.com/watch?v=CiHxAQhkijk Bryclen age 10?  http://youtube.com/watch?v=IUSk5RiFNUc 26 yr old F  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlC8G5nNE7k Sara
    26. 26. 26 Current CFCS draft  What is not clear?  What do you like?  Any other suggestions or comments?
    27. 27. 27 Issues  Age bands? Does age appropriateness interact with effective communication?  Separate (optional) subscales for sender and for receiver?  Unfamiliar/familiar partners treated as categories, probably more along a degree of familiarity?  Environmental demands?
    28. 28. 28 Want to be Involved?  Email CFCS Project Coordinator Brenda Johnson at cfcs@epi.msu.edu to:  Join our Listserv!  Find out what is going on with CFCS research via occasional emails  Participate in Delphi Survey and/or Reliability Studies.  Encourage others to participate in Delphi Survey and/or Reliability Studies.
    29. 29. 29 Participants Needed Recruiting adults interested in cerebral palsy (CP) including: Adults with CP, Educators, Neurologists, Occupational therapists (OTs), Pediatricians, Physical therapists (PTs), Speech-language pathologists (SLPs), & Parents of children with CP See details at http://www.msu.edu/~hidecke1/Delphi_Survey_Study.pdf http://www.msu.edu/~hidecke1/ReliabilityStudy.PDF For more information, please contact Brenda Wickline Johnson cfcs@epi.msu.edu
    30. 30. 30 Clinical Implications – examples  Knowing a person’s CFCS classification may suggest a starting point for intervention (need clinical 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?
    31. 31. 31 Clinical Implications – examples  Level III – Increase communication partners? Improve communication repair strategies?  Level IV – Increase sender and/or receiver skills?  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.
    32. 32. 32 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 body structure/function measures of speech, language, & hearing.  Correlate the CFCS level to quality of life and/or participation measures.
    33. 33. 33 Acknowledgements  Thank you to the individuals who participated in the Development Team, our Nominal Group Studies, and our Research Team: Deena Agree, George Baker, Lisa Bardach, Lehua Beamon, Megan Bigalke, Ken Chester, Kipp Chillag, Kristen Darga, Susan Davenport, Ann-Christine Eliasson, Denise Fitzpatrick, Maria S. French, Beth Fox, Barb Galuppi, Jonathon Gold, Lisa Herren, Clare Jorgensen, Marilyn Kertoy, Lauren Klier, Jenny Koivisto, Lena Krumlinde, John Lawton, Janet Lillie, Michael Livingston, Rhonda Massa, Lauren Michalsen, Jeanette Miller, Chris Morris, Tiffany Nelson, Nancy Novakaski, Krista Richardson, Cindy J. Russell, Dianne Russell, Yakov Sigal, Marliese Sharp, Geraldine Schram, Becky Schroeder, Dennis Schroeder, Archie Soelaeman, Nancy Thomas-Stonell, David VanDyke, Lynna Walta, Lauren Werner, & Kristin Whitfield.  This research is supported in part by an NIH postdoctoral fellowship (NIDCD 5F32DC008265-02) as well as grants from the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Education Foundation and The Hearst Foundations.
    34. 34. References Bax, Tydeman, & Flodmark (2006). Clinical and MRI correlates of cerebral palsy: The European Cerebral Palsy Study. JAMA. 296(13), 1602-1608. Colver & SPARCLE (2006). Study protocol: SPARCLE--a multi-centre European study of the relationship of environment to participation and quality of life in children with cerebral palsy. BMC Public Health. 25(6), 105-115. Denes & Pinson (1993). The speech chain: The physics and biology of spoken speech. 2nd ed. New York: WH Freeman. Economic costs associated with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, and vision impairment--United States (2004). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 53(3), 57-59. Odding, Roebroeck, & Hendrik (2006). The epidemiology of cerebral palsy: Incidence, impairment and risk factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(4), 183-191. Paneth, Hong, & Korzeniewski (2006). The descriptive epidemiology of cerebral palsy. Clinical Perinatol 33(2),251-67. Pellegrino (2002). Cerebral palsy. In M. Batshaw (Ed.), Children with disabilities. (pp. 451-466). Washington, D.C.: Paul H. Brooks. Rosenbaum, Paneth, Leviton, Goldstein, Bax, Damiano, Dan, & Jacobsson (2007). A report: The definition and classification of cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl. 109, 8-14. Stanley, Blair, & Alberman (2003). Cerebral palsies: Epidemiology and causal pathways. London: Mac Keith Press. World Health Organization (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF, The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
    35. 35. 35 Contact us  Mary Jo Cooley Hidecker, PI hidecke1@msu.edu  Brenda Johnson, Project Coordinator cfcs@epi.msu.edu  CFCS Phone: 517-353-8623 X 147

    ×