Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
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 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 Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, hereditary ataxias, and head and neck cancer, and 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 estimated MCIDs and within-subject variability provided. Group differences were observed, with lower DIS scores in ataxia and Parkinson's disease compared to Huntington's disease.ConclusionsThe DIS is a valid, reliable, and practical PRO for quantifying the impact of dysarthria on quality of life. Longitudinal responsiveness remains to be established.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.