Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for Adults

  • Diane PaulEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_854

Synonyms

ASHA FACS

Description

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for Adults (ASHA FACS) was designed as a quick and easily administered measure of functional communication behaviors at the level of disability in adults with speech, language, and cognitive-communication impairments (Frattali et al. 1995; Frattali et al. 2017). The ASHA FACS uses the following definition of functional communication: “the ability to receive or to convey a message, regardless of the mode, to communicate effectively and independently in a given [natural] environment” (ASHA 1990, p. 2). The World Health Organization (WHO 2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provides the framework for functional assessment. The ICF consists of two components: functioning and disability (body functions/structures and activity/participation) and contextual factors (environmental and personal). The ASHA FACS assesses...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adamovich, B., & Henderson, J. (1992). Scales of cognitive ability for traumatic brain injury. Chicago: Riverside.Google Scholar
  2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1990). Advisory report, functional communication measures project. Rockville: Author.Google Scholar
  3. de Carvalho, I. A. M., & Mansur, L. L. (2008). Validation of ASHA FACS-functional assessment of communication skills for Alzheimer disease population. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 22(4), 375–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davidson, B., Worrall, L., & Hickson, L. (2003). Identifying the communication activities of older people with aphasia: Evidence from naturalistic observation. Aphasiology, 17(3), 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Donovan, N. J., Rosenbek, J. C., Ketterson, T. U., & Velozo, C. A. (2006). Adding meaning to measurement: Initial Rasch analysis of the ASHA FACS social communication subtest. Aphasiology, 20(2–4), 362–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frattali, C. M., Thompson, C. K., Holland, A. L., Wohl, C. B., & Ferketic, M. M. (1995). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for adults (ASHA FACS). Rockville: ASHA.Google Scholar
  7. Frattali, C. M., Thompson, C. K., Holland, A. L., Wohl, C. B., Wenck, C. J., Slater, S. C., & Paul, D. (2017). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for adults (ASHA FACS). Rockville: ASHA.Google Scholar
  8. Kagan, A., Simmons-Mackie, N., Rowland, A., Huijbregts, M., Shumway, E., McEwen, S., Threats, T., & Sharp, S. (2008). Counting what counts: A framework for capturing real-life outcomes of aphasia intervention. Aphasiology, 22(3), 258–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kertesz, A. (1982). Western aphasia battery. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  10. Lomas, J., Pickard, L., Bester, S., Elbard, H., Finlayson, A., & Zoghaib, C. (1989). The communicative effectiveness index: Development and psychometric evaluation of a functional communication measure for adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 113–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Paul, D., Frattali, C. M., Holland, A. L., Thompson, C. K., & Slater, S. C. (2004a). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for adults: Addendum. Rockville: ASHA.Google Scholar
  12. Paul, D., Frattali, C. M., Holland, A. L., Thompson, C. K., Caperton, C. J., & Slater, S. C. (2004b). Quality of communication life scale. Rockville: ASHA.Google Scholar
  13. Ross, K. B., & Wertz, R. T. (2002). Relationships between language-based disability and quality of life in chronically aphasic adults. Aphasiology, 16(8), 791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. State University of New York at Buffalo Research Foundation. (1993). Guide for use of the uniform data set for medical rehabilitation: Functional Independence Measure. Buffalo: Author.Google Scholar
  15. Turkstra, L. S., Coelho, C., & Ylvisaker, M. (2005). The use of standardized tests for individuals with cognitive-communication disorders. Seminars in Speech and Language, 26(4), 215–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: Author.Google Scholar
  17. Worrall, L., & Yiu, E. (2000). Effectiveness of functional communication therapy by volunteers for people with aphasia following stroke. Aphasiology, 14(9), 911–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Readings

  1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). National outcomes measurement system (NOMS). Available from www.asha.org/NOMS
  2. Davidson, B., & Worrall, L. (2000). The assessment of activity limitation in functional communication: Challenges and choices. In L. E. Worrall & C. M. Frattali (Eds.), Neurogenic communication disorders: A functional approach (pp. 19–34). New York: Thieme.Google Scholar
  3. Golper, L. C., & Frattali, C. M. (2012). Outcomes in speech-language pathology: Contemporary theories, models, and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Thieme.Google Scholar
  4. Worrall, L., McCooey, R., Davidson, B., Larkins, B., & Hickson, L. (2002). The validity of functional assessments of communication and the activity/participation components of the ICIDH-2: Do they reflect what really happens in real-life? Journal of Communication Disorders, 35(2), 107–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Issues in Speech-Language PathologyAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationRockvilleUSA