Dutch translation and validation of the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB)—short form

Klaske E. van Sluis, Ellen Passchier, Rob J. J. H. van Son, Lisette van der Molen, Martijn Stuiver, Michiel W. M. van den Brekel, Leen Van den Steen, Johanna G. Kalf, Gwen van Nuffelen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

11 Downloads (Pure)



Several conditions and diseases can result in speech problems that can have a negative impact on everyday functioning, referred to as communicative participation. Subjective problems with acquired speech problems are often assessed with the speech handicap index (SHI). To assess generic participation problems, the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation–Participation (USER-P) questionnaire is frequently used. The English questionnaire Communicative Participation Item Bank—short form (CPIB short form) is a 10-item valid, reliable instrument that assesses communicative participation. In the absence of a Dutch equivalent, translation and validation of the CPIB short form was required.

To translate the CPIB short form into Dutch, and to determine its psychometric properties for the group of adults with speech problems resulting from a neurological aetiology or head and neck cancer.

Methods & Procedures
Translation of the CPIB short form was performed following the instructions of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC). In a cross-sectional multi-centre study, participants completed the Dutch CPIB short form together with the SHI and USER-P, and the CPIB a second time after 2 weeks. We assessed internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the CPIB. Construct validity was assessed based on correlations with SHI, USER-P and speech assessments.

Outcomes & Results
In the validation study, 122 participants were included: 51 with dysarthria due to different neurological disorders, 48 with speech problems due to head and neck cancer treatment and 23 healthy controls. Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.962), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for test–retest reliability was high 0.908 (95% CI = 0.870–0.935). Construct validity was supported by a strong correlation between the Dutch CPIB short form and the SHI total score (SHI total rs = 0.887) and a moderate correlation between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the USER-P subscales (USER-P Frequency rs = 0.365; USER-P restrictions and USER-P satisfaction rs = 0.546). A moderate correlation was found between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the speech performance assessments (degree of distortedness r = −0.0557; p ≤ 0.001; degree of intelligibility r = 0.0562).

Conclusions & Implications
The Dutch CPIB short form provides a valid and reliable tool for clinical practice and research purposes. It allows clinicians to start using this PROM in clinical and research practice to systematically investigate the impact of the speech problems on communicative participation in a Dutch-speaking population.

What this paper adds
What is already known on the subject
Communicative participation allows people to take part in life situations, but can be affected by acquired speech problems. The CPIB is a patient-reported outcome measure for the assessment of this concept. For the English language the 46-item bank and a 10-item short form is available.

What this paper adds to existing knowledge
This paper describes the process of translation of the CPIB short form into Dutch, and confirms its reproducibility and validity.

What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?
With this validated Dutch version of the CPIB short form available, professionals can implement this tool in clinical and research practice to systematically evaluate communicative participation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)124-137
JournalInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2023


Dive into the research topics of 'Dutch translation and validation of the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB)—short form'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this