Primary Image

RehabMeasures Instrument

La Trobe Communication Questionnaire

Purpose

A measure of perceived communicative ability that assesses communication ability based on information gathered from the patient and close others.

Link to Instrument

Acronym LCQ

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery

Key Descriptions

  • A two-form, 30-item questionnaire that assess perceived communication quality in TBI survivors.
  • The LCQ-S is administered to the patient.
  • The LCQ-O is administered to a close other. Items are the same as those that appear in the LCQ-S except they are phrased in the third person.
  • Response options are on a four-point Likert-type scale:
    1) Never or rarely
    2) Sometimes
    3) Often
    4) Usually or always

Number of Items

30

Time to Administer

20-40 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

Cognition

Considerations

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Brain Injury

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Acute TBI: (Struchen et al, 2008; = 80 TBI patients, mean age = 37.70 (12.14) years; mean education = 13.20 (2.14) years)

TBI and family Member LCQ Scores*:

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension

TBI (n = 88)

Family (n = 88)

Std. Error of Mean

t-Statistic

p-value

LCQ total score

53.52

54.71

1.53

-0.77

0.44

Initiation/Conversational Flow scale

18.15

17.87

0.73

0.38

0.70

Disinhibition/Impulsivity scale

13.19

14.17

0.57

-1.71

0.09

Conversational Effectiveness scale

12.97

14.02

0.62

-1.69

0.10

Partner sensitivity scale

8.17

8.24

0.36

-0.19

0.85

* Based Struchen et al, (2008) 4 factor LCQ model

 

 

 

 

 

Normative Data

??????Chronic TBI Compared to Healthy Controls: (Douglas et al, 2010; n = 43 TBI patients, mean age at time of injury 32.93 (11.37) years; mean time since injury 5.36 (3.61) years; n = 43 controls, matched to the TBI group in terms of education, age and gender).

TBI Versus Control Group Norms:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Self

 

 

 

Relative

 

 

 

Self

 

 

Relative

 

LCQ Domain

Mean (SD)

Range

Mean (SD)

Range 

Mean (SD)

Range

Mean (SD)

Range

LCQ Total

59.70 (15.51)

31-91

60.3 (16.37)

34-94

48.42 (9.58)

30-69

41.21 (8.27)

30-61

Quantity*

8.37 (2.80)

4-14

8.95 (2.76)

4-15

6.65 (1.48)

4-10

6.00 (1.77)

4-11

Quality*

4.67 (1.67)

3-9

5.35 (1.89)

3-9

4.32 (1.12)

3-7

4.16 (1.25)

3-7

Relation*

10.16 (3.15)

5-17

10.21 (2.91)

5-16

8.09 (2.15)

5.12

6.79 (1.81)

5-11

Manner*

17.00 (4.59)

9-25

16.91 (4.98)

9-28

13.65 (3.00)

9-22

11.67 (2.80)

9-20

*Based on Grice’s (1975) Maxims of Cooperative Principle of conversation

Internal Consistency

Acute TBI: (Struchen et al, 2008)

Internal Consistency of Struchen's 4-factor LCQ Model: 

 

 

 

 

Factor*

# Items

Mean (SD)

Strength

Cronbach’s alpha

Initiation/Conversational Flow

10

18.0 (6.0)

Excellent

0.87

Disinhibition/Impulsivity

7

13.0 (4.2)

Adequate

0.77

Conversational Effectiveness

6

12.5 (4.2)

Adequate

0.74

Partner Sensitivity

4

7.8 (2.9)

Adequate

0.75

Based on 27 LSQ items; *n = 276

 

 

 

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Chronic TBI: (Watts and Douglas 2006; n = 12 sever TBI patients and 12 matched controls; TBI patients had post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) for at least 7 days; mean age (TBI) 32.33 (13.89) years; Time post injury 502.5 (418.68) days)

Measure

Mean

SD

Range

EET total*

21.50

3.31

15-26

LCQ self-report

60.92

13.92

38-87

LCQ close-other

66.45

13.59

47-91

*EET = The Emotion Evaluation Test 

  • Adequate: correlation between LCQ ratings made by close others and performance on the facial expression tasks (r = –.532, p = .037)
  • Not Significant: correlation between LCQ self-reports and performance on the facial expression tasks (r = -.412, p = .091)

Construct Validity

Chronic TBI: (Douglas et al, 2007; n = 88 TBI patients and 71 close others; mean age = 32.26 (12.12) years; months post injury 64.40 (70.15) months; patients experienced a loss of consciousness and post-traumatic amnesia for at least 7 days) 

  • A seven-factor structure, in which 27 of 30 items clearly loaded on a factor, accounted for 60.88% of total variance.

Acute TBI: (Struchen et al, 2008; n = 80 TBI patients, mean age = 37.70 (12.14) years; mean years of education = 13.20 (2.14) years)

Struchen's validation study resulted in a four-factor model composed of 27 items that accounted for 48.25% of the variance.  Factors include:

Factor

Dimension

Definition

1

Initiation/Conversational Flow factor

Difficulties with starting and maintaining conversations

2

Disinhibition/Impulsivity factor

Impulsive or disinhibited conversational behaviors, such as saying rude or embarrassing things

3

Conversational Effectiveness

Effectiveness of conversation, being accurate and logical in Perceived social communication and having the ability to change speech style easily

4

Partner Sensitivity factor

Sensitivity to a conversational partner’s needs, such as repeating information, talking about things for too long and switching topics too quickly

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Normative Data

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000; n = 147, primary subjects and 109 close others; mean age = 20.6 years; participants were Australian students)  

  • Mean (SD) scores: Primary subjects, 52.47 (9.62), range = 31 to 78 

  • Mean (SD) scores: Close others, 47.17 (9.93), range = 30 to 77

Test/Retest Reliability

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000; n = 24; subjects assessed twice with an 8 weeks interval between assessments)

  • Adequate primary subject test-retest reliability (= 0.7558)
  • Poor close other test-retest reliability (r = 0.4784)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

The LCQ is administered to both the TBI patient and a close other.  For differences in perceived communication refer to the normative data section above. 

Internal Consistency

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000)

  • Excellent primary subject internal consistency (r =0.8538) 
  • Excellent close other internal consistency (r = 0.8551)

Construct Validity

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000)


Construct validity was established using factor analysis. 25 of the 30 items loaded on one of the following six dimensions:

LCQ Factor Dimensions:

 

Factor

Dimension

1

Conversational tone

2

Conversational e?ectiveness

3

Conversational flow

4

Conversational engagement

5

Conversational (partner) sensitivity

6

Conversational attention / focus

Content Validity

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000)

Items were selected for the measure based on two guiding principles:

  • Fundamental Characteristics of normal effective communication
  • An assessment of characteristics of cognitive-communicative breakdown following brain injury

Assessments of what constitutes normal communication was further guided by Grices Co-operative Principle of normal discourse (1975).
 

Literature examining deficits of communication following TBI was also consulted prior to item construction.

Bibliography

Douglas, J. M. (2010). "Relation of Executive Functioning to Pragmatic Outcome Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury." Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research 53(2): 365-382. 

Douglas, J. M., Bracy, C. A., et al. (2007). "Exploring the factor structure of the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire: Insights into the nature of communication deficits following traumatic brain injury." Aphasiology 21(12): 1181-1194. 

Douglas, J. M., O'Flaherty, C. A., et al. (2000). "Measuring perception of communicative ability: the development and evaluation of the La Trobe communication questionnaire." Aphasiology 14(3): 251-268. 

Struchen, M. A., Pappadis, M. R., et al. (2008). "Perceptions of communication abilities for persons with traumatic brain injury: Validity of the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire." Brain Injury 22(12): 940-951. 

Watts, A. and Douglas, J. (2006). "Interpreting facial expression and communication competence following severe traumatic brain injury." Aphasiology 20(8): 707-722.