Develops the FRIENDS scale to measure friendships in people with aphasia, indicating its potential in enhancing therapy.
Background and aims Friendship is vital for the well-being and social integration of people with aphasia (PWA) post-stroke. The impact of chronic aphasia on the friendships and social engagement of PWA is often overlooked by rehabilitation clinicians. Aim: To co-create the Functional Rating of Interaction Engagement Needs and Difficulties Scale (FRIENDS), a self-report aphasia-friendly tool, in collaboration with PWA, and test its psychometric properties. Methods A Patient and Public Involvement approach was adopted, involving 3 PWA and a caregiver as research partners across eight co-design meetings. FRIENDS’ psychometric properties were evaluated with reliability and validity measures. The psychometric study involved 166 participants: 62 PWA, 50 people with stroke without aphasia, and 54 healthy controls. Results FRIENDS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.960) and high test–retest reliability (ICC ≥0.99). The results demonstrated a significant difference among the three groups (p < 0.001), which verified known-groups validity. Significant correlations between FRIENDS and measures of aphasia severity, functional communication, and quality of life supported the tool’s convergent validity. Results derived from analyzing the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) report supported its content validity. Conclusions FRIENDS is a psychometrically sound, patient-reported outcome measure, developed to rate changes in the friendships of PWA. Co-created with PWA, FRIENDS offers a broad view of chronic aphasia’s impact on friendships, aiding clinicians in co-developing functional intervention plans, enabling person-centered care, and improving the social life of PWA. Conflict of interest Nothing to disclose
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marina Charalambous (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: