<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Edwards, Karlyn A</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alschuler, Kevin A</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ehde, Dawn M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Battalio, Samuel L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jensen, Mark P</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Changes in Resilience Predict Function in Adults With Physical Disabilities: A Longitudinal Study.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arch Phys Med Rehabil</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017 Feb</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">98</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">329-336</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;OBJECTIVES: &lt;/b&gt;(1) To determine if resilience exhibits similar stability across time as depression, fatigue, and sleep quality; and (2) to determine if changes in resilience over a period of 1 year are associated with changes in depression, fatigue, sleep quality, and physical function over the same time period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;DESIGN: &lt;/b&gt;Observational longitudinal survey study with measures administered 2 times, 1 year apart.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;SETTING: &lt;/b&gt;Community-based population sample.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;PARTICIPANTS: &lt;/b&gt;Adults with physical disabilities (N=893).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;INTERVENTIONS: &lt;/b&gt;Not applicable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: &lt;/b&gt;Primary outcomes were measures of resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), fatigue (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Fatigue Short Form), sleep quality (PROMIS Sleep Disturbance), and physical function (8-item PROMIS Physical Functioning).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;RESULTS: &lt;/b&gt;Resilience (r=.71, P&amp;lt;.001) exhibited similar stability over 1 year to depression (r=.71, P&amp;lt;.001), fatigue (r=.79, P&amp;lt;.001), and sleep quality (r=.68, P&amp;lt;.001). A decrease in resilience was associated with an increase in depression (F1,885=70.23; P&amp;lt;.001; R(2)=.54) and fatigue (F1,885=25.66; P&amp;lt;.001; R(2)=.64), and an increase in resilience was associated with improved sleep quality (F1,885=30.76; P&amp;lt;.001; R(2)=.48) and physical function (F1,885=16.90; P&amp;lt;.001; R(2)=.86) over a period of 1 year, while controlling for age, sex, and diagnosis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;CONCLUSIONS: &lt;/b&gt;Resilience exhibits similar test-retest stability as other important domains that are often treatment targets. Changes in resilience were associated with changes in depression, fatigue, sleep quality, and physical functioning over the course of 1 year. Further longitudinal and experimental research is warranted to investigate the potential causal effect of changes in resilience on quality of life in individuals with physical disabilities.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bowers, Anne</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Owen, Randall</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heller, Tamar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Care coordination experiences of people with disabilities enrolled in medicaid managed care.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Disabil Rehabil</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016 Aug 22</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1-8</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;PURPOSE: To understand the impact of experience and contacts with care coordinators on Medicaid Managed Care (MMC) enrollees with disabilities. METHOD: Primary data was collected from a random sample of 6000 out of the 100,000 people with disabilities enrolled in one state&amp;#39;s mandatory MMC program. Surveys were conducted through the mail, telephone, and Internet; 1041 surveys were completed. The sample used for analysis included 442 MMC enrollees who received care coordination. Regression analyses were conducted with the outcomes of number of unmet health care needs and enrollee appraisal of the health services they received. Race, age, gender, and disability variables controlled for demographic differences, and the independent variables included enrollee experience with a care coordinator (coordinator knowledge of enrollee medical history and whether the coordinator took into account enrollee wishes and input) and frequency of contact with a care coordinator. RESULTS: Positive enrollee experiences with care coordinators significantly related to more positive enrollee health service appraisals and fewer unmet health care needs; frequency of contact did not have any significant impacts. People with mental health disabilities and intellectual/developmental disabilities had significantly lower health service appraisals. People with mental health disabilities had significantly more unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of care coordination, but not frequency of contact alone, is associated with better health outcomes for MMC enrollees. Implications for rehabilitation Care coordination is a core component of managed care and facilitates effective healthcare management for people with complex chronic conditions and disabilities. Better experiences with care coordinators is related to fewer unmet healthcare needs and more positive health care service appraisals for Medicaid managed care enrollees. The continuous development of person-centered care coordination strategies and training programs emphasizing quality relationships between coordinators and consumers should be prioritized.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Molton, Ivan R</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Closing the gap for people aging with disability: adaptation as a translational research strategy</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Annual Meeting of the Gerontological Society of North America</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bamer, Alyssa M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Johnson, Kurt L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ehde, Dawn M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beier, Meghan L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elzea, Jamie L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier, Charles H</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A comparison of multiple patient reported outcome measures in identifying major depressive disorder in people with multiple sclerosis.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Psychosom Res</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015 Dec</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">79</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">550-7</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;BACKGROUND: Depression is one of the most prominent and debilitating symptoms in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), yet there is currently no consensus on the best instruments for depression screening in MS. More head to head comparisons of available screening instruments are needed to advise MS researchers and clinicians. METHODS: A cross-sectional comparison of the effectiveness of screening for MDD using multiple patient reported outcome (PRO) screeners against a modified SCID telephone interview was completed in 164 individuals with MS. Stratum goals were set for depression levels to ensure participation by people with borderline and higher levels of depression. Criterion standard was a modified SCID MDD module. PRO measures included the PHQ-9, BDI-FS, PROMIS depression, Neuro-QOL depression, M-PHQ-2, PHQ-2, and CESD. RESULTS: 48 (29%) individuals met the modified SCID criteria for MDD. The sensitivity of the PRO measures ranged from 60% to 100% while specificity ranged from 46% to 86%. The ROC area for the PRO measures ranged from 0.79 to 0.83. Revised (higher) cutoff scores were suggested by the ROC analyses for most self-reported screeners. LIMITATIONS: Enrollment was stopped early because of difficulties with recruitment. Several SCID recording could not be reviewed and diagnosis confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: CESD-10 and PHQ9 had the best diagnostic performance using optimal cutoffs, but no one PRO measure stood out as significantly better than any other. Even when revised cutoff scores were used, none of the self-reported screeners identified people with MDD with adequate accuracy. More accurate self-reported screeners would facilitate diagnosing of MDD for both research and clinical purposes.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yorkston, Kathryn M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Baylor, Carolyn</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communicative participation restrictions in multiple sclerosis: Associated variables and correlation with social functioning.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Commun Disord</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014 May 26</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Epub Ahead of Print</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at risk for communication problems that may restrict their ability to take participation in important life roles such as maintenance of relationships, work, or household management. The aim of this project is to examine selected demographic and symptom-related variables that may contribute to participation restrictions. This examination is intended to aid clinicians in predicting who might be at risk for such restrictions and what variables may be targeted in interventions. Community-dwelling adults with MS (n=216) completed a survey either online or using paper forms. The survey included the 46-item version of the Communicative Participation Item Bank, demographics (age, sex, living situation, employment status, education, and time since onset of diagnosis of MS), and self-reported symptom-related variables (physical activity, emotional problems, fatigue, pain, speech severity, and cognitive/communication skills). In order to identify predictors of restrictions in communicative participation, these variables were entered into a backwards stepwise multiple linear regression analysis. Five variables (cognitive/communication skills, speech severity, speech usage, physical activity, and education) were statistically significant predictors of communication participation. In order to examine the relationship of communicative participation and social role variables, bivariate Spearman correlations were conducted. Results suggest only a fair to moderate relationship between communicative participation and measures of social roles. Communicative participation is a complex construct associated with a number of self-reported variables. Clinicians should be alert to risk factors for reduced communicative participation including reduced cognitive and speech skills, lower levels of speech usage, limitations in physical activities and higher levels of education. Learning outcomes: The reader will be able to: (a) describe the factors that may restrict participation in individuals with multiple sclerosis; (b) list measures of social functioning that may be pertinent in adults with multiple sclerosis; (c) discuss factors that can be used to predict communicative participation in multiple sclerosis.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fogelberg, Donald J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vitiello, Michael V</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hoffman, Jeanne M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bamer, Alyssa M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Comparison of Self-Report Sleep Measures for Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis and Spinal Cord Injury.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arch Phys Med Rehabil</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014 Oct 23</style></date></pub-dates></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;OBJECTIVE: To investigate self-report measures of sleep disturbances and sleep-related impairments in samples of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) or spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Community based. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age &amp;ge;18y) (N=700) with either MS (n=461) or SCI (n=239) who were enrolled in a longitudinal survey of self-reported health outcomes and who completed self-report sleep measures at 1 time point. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-S), Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) sleep disturbance short form, and PROMIS sleep-related impairments short form. RESULTS: Mean scores on the MOS-S sleep index II were significantly worse for both the MS and SCI samples than those of previously reported samples representative of the U.S. general population (P&amp;lt;.0001 for each group). The PROMIS sleep disturbance short form and PROMIS sleep-related impairments short form scores of the MS sample were also significantly different from those reported for the calibration cohort (P&amp;lt;.0001 on each scale). However, although the scores of the SCI sample were significantly different from those of the comparison cohort for the PROMIS sleep-related impairments short form (P=.045), the differences on the PROMIS sleep disturbance short form were not significant (P=.069). CONCLUSIONS: Although the MOS-S scores for the MS and SCI cohorts clearly indicated significantly high levels of sleep-related problems and were consistent with existing literature, the more ambiguous findings from the PROMIS sleep disturbance short form and PROMIS sleep-related impairments short form suggest that not enough is currently known about how these instruments function when applied to those with chronic neurologic dysfunction.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Baylor, Carolyn</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yorkston, Kathryn</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eadie, Tanya</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kim, Jiseon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chung, Hyewon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB): item bank calibration and development of a disorder-generic short form.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Speech Lang Hear Res</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adult</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aged</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aged, 80 and over</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Calibration</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Disability Evaluation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dysarthria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Female</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Head and Neck Neoplasms</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Male</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Middle Aged</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Multiple Sclerosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Parkinson Disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Questionnaires</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reproducibility of Results</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Self Report</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Social Behavior</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Voice Disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Young Adult</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013 Aug</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">56</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1190-208</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to calibrate the items for the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB; Baylor, Yorkston, Eadie, Miller, &amp;amp; Amtmann, 2009; Yorkston et al., 2008) using item response theory (IRT). One overriding objective was to examine whether the IRT item parameters would be consistent across different diagnostic groups, thereby allowing creation of a disorder-generic instrument. The intended outcomes were the final item bank and a short form ready for clinical and research applications. METHOD: Self-report data were collected from 701 individuals representing 4 diagnoses: multiple sclerosis, Parkinson&amp;#39;s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and head and neck cancer. Participants completed the CPIB and additional self-report questionnaires. CPIB data were analyzed using the IRT graded response model. RESULTS: The initial set of 94 candidate CPIB items were reduced to an item bank of 46 items demonstrating unidimensionality, local independence, good item fit, and good measurement precision. Differential item functioning analyses detected no meaningful differences across diagnostic groups. A 10-item, disorder-generic short form was generated. CONCLUSIONS: The CPIB provides speech-language pathologists with a unidimensional, self-report outcomes measurement instrument dedicated to the construct of communicative participation. This instrument may be useful to clinicians and researchers wanting to implement measures of communicative participation in their work.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cook, Karon F</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bamer, Alyssa M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jensen, Mark P</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Johnson, Kurt L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Callahan, Leigh</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kim, Jiseon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Keefe, Francis J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Revicki, Dennis</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Roddey, Toni S</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Comparison of pain behaviors in multiple sclerosis, back pain, and arthritis.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quality of life research</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quality of Life</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Research</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22298117</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Aims: To compare pain behaviors in three samples: multiple sclerosis (MS), back pain, and arthritis using pain behavior frequency counts (video-taped), and self- and signiﬁcant other (SO)-responses to candidate items for a new pain behavior measure. Methods: A sample of patient/SO pairs (N=620 pairs) completed measures of pain, function, disability, and other pain correlates. In addition, a sample of 30 individuals with back pain, 26 with arthritis, and 30 with MS were videotaped for 10 minutes while sitting, standing, walking, and lying down. Videotapes were coded to obtain pain behavior frequency counts by category (guarding, sighing, bracing, rubbing, and grimacing) and total behavior counts. Results: Mean item responses (1 to 5 response scale) in MS, arthritis, and back pain were, respectively, 2.7 (SD=0.56), 2.7 (SD=0.71), and 3.0 (SD=0.69) Spearman correlation coefﬁcients between patient and SO pain responses were 0.55 (MS), 0.60 (arthritis), and 0.67 (back pain). Mean item score differences between self and SO item scores (1-5 response scale) were highest for persons with arthritis (0.08 higher) and lowest for persons with MS (0.02 higher). Self-reported pain behaviors and pain behavior frequency counts (videotapes) were moderately correlated and varied by item. Items with highest correlations were items about using a cane or other support (0.62), asking for help when walking (0.53), and the item, &amp;ldquo;You could hear it in my voice&amp;rdquo; (0.50). Classes of behaviors most correlated with self-report pain behaviors varied by diagnosis. In the back pain sample, guarding behavior counts had the strongest correlation with self-report (0.50). In the arthritis sample, the highest correlations were between self-reported pain behaviors and guarding (0.47) and total behavior counts (0.53). In the sample with MS, the highest values were for counts of rubbing (0.49) and total behavior counts (0.64). Conclusions: Pain behaviors vary somewhat by diagnosis but there also are substantial similarities. Signiﬁcant others reported higher levels of pain behaviors than were self-reported, but mean differences were less than 1 response category on a 1-5 response scale. The correlations among self-report, SO-report, and frequency counts based on videotaped observations support the validity of candidate items for a new pain behavior measure.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Suppl 1</style></issue><accession-num><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22298117</style></accession-num></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bamer, Alyssa M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Noonan, Vanessa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lang, Nina</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kim, Jiseon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cook, Karon F</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Comparison of the psychometric properties of two fatigue scales in multiple sclerosis.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rehabilitation Psychology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rehabil Psychol</style></alt-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012 May</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">57</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">159-66</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Objective: To compare psychometric functioning of the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS; Krupp, LaRocca, Muir-Nash, &amp;amp; Steinberg, 1989) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS; MSCCPG, 1998) in a community sample of persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Method: A self-report survey including the FSS, MFIS, demographic, and other health measures was completed by 1271 individuals with MS. Analyses evaluated the reliability and validity of the scales, assessed their dimensional structures, and estimated levels of floor and ceiling effects. Item response theory (IRT) was used to evaluate the precision of the MFIS and FSS at different levels of fatigue. Results: Participants had a mean score on the FSS of 5.1 and of 44.2 on the MFIS. Cronbach&amp;#39;s alpha values for FSS and MFIS were all 0.93 or greater. Known-groups and discriminant validity of MFIS and FSS scores were supported by the analyses. The MFIS had low floor and ceiling effects, and the FSS had low floor and moderate ceiling effects. Unidimensionality was supported for both scales. IRT analyses indicate that the FSS is less precise in measuring both low and high levels of fatigue, compared with the MFIS. Conclusions: Researchers and clinicians interested in measuring physical aspects of fatigue in samples whose fatigue ranges from mild to moderate can choose either instrument. For those interested in measuring both physical and cognitive aspects of fatigue, and whose sample is expected to have higher levels of fatigue, the MFIS is a better choice even though it is longer. IRT analyses suggest that both scales could be shortened without a significant loss of precision. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22686554?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Borson, Soo</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cognition, aging, and disabilities: conceptual issues.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Activities of Daily Living</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aged</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aged, 80 and over</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aging</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cognition Disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Disability Evaluation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Disabled Persons</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Executive Function</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Female</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Geriatric Assessment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Incidence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Male</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Neuropsychological Tests</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quality of Life</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Risk Assessment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sickness Impact Profile</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Task Performance and Analysis</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010 May</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">375-82</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This article reviews normative changes in cognition that are observed across the adult life span and considers how specific disabilities may interact with aging processes to increase functional decline in later life. Disabling conditions that directly affect the brain are contrasted with those that do not. The goal is twofold: to create a framework for thinking about how cognitive changes, aging, and disability may interact to help explain individual differences in coping, and to promote the inclusion of cognition in a comprehensive approach to assessment and care.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20494283?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yorkston, Kathryn M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bourgeois, Michelle S</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Baylor, Carolyn R</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication and aging.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aged</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aged, 80 and over</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aging</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication Barriers</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication Disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dysarthria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Female</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Geriatric Assessment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health Behavior</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health Services Accessibility</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Incidence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Interpersonal Relations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Male</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Memory Disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Professional-Patient Relations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quality of Life</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Risk Assessment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sensation Disorders</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010 May</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">309-19</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;People with communication disorders form a diverse group with some experiencing long-standing disorders and others the onset of new disorders in old age. Regardless of age at onset, the burden of communication disorders is cumulative and has important implications for health care providers. Communication serves many roles for older people, not only establishing and maintaining social affiliations but also providing access to health care services. Health care providers should be aware of potential communication disorders and make provision for quiet environments, reading materials at appropriate literacy levels, and longer appointments for people with communication difficulties.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20494279?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record></records></xml>