Table 3.
Scores of the scales (data of 35 participants)
| Median | Range | |
| Severity p-RDA scales | ||
| p-RDA severity scale at function level (0 = no dysarthria, 5 = very severe)1 | 2 | 0–5 |
| p-RDA severity scale at activity level (0 = effective communication, 5 = no oral communication possible)2 | 3 | 0–5 |
| Convergent and divergent scales | ||
| Communication | ||
| Intelligibility in Context Scale: Dutch (1 = low intelligibility, 5 = high intelligibility)3 | 3.5 | 1–5 |
| Communication Function Classification System (1 = effective communication both verbal and non-verbal, 5 = rarely any effective communication neither verbal nor non-verbal)4 | 3 | 1–4 |
| Viking Speech scale (1 = speech not affected, 4 = no understandable speech)5 | 3 | 1–4 |
| Capacity Profile Voice and speech (0 = understandable speech should be possible, 5 = no communication possible)6 | 1 | 0–4 |
| Mobility | ||
| Manual Ability Classification System (1 = handles objects easily, 5 = does not handle objects)7 | 3 | 1–5 |
| Gross Motor Function Classification System (1 = climb stairs without limitations, 5 = wheelchair bound)8 | 2 | 1–5 |
| Vignos and Brooke Classification upper extremities (1 = no limitations, 6 = no functional use of hands) | 1 | 1–2 |
| Vignos and Brooke Classification lower extremities (1 = climbing stairs without assistance, 10 = bedridden) | 2 | 1–9 |
| Self-care | ||
| Functional Oral Intake Scale (7 = oral diet with no restriction, 1 = nothing by mouth)9 | 7 | 3–7 |
The higher the score, the higher the level of restrictions, except for the ICS and FOIS scale. 1One missing value (3%), because SLTs could not reliably judge the dysarthria severity due to profound hearing loss with cochlear implants at both sides; this child was unable to understand all the commands for the tasks, especially the maximum performance tasks. 2Two missing values (6%), because SLTs could not reliably judge the dysarthria severity due to profound comorbidity (severe phonological problems and childhood apraxia of speech); these children proved unable to react during the conversation, which is needed to judge oral communication. 3 - 7Missing values because of non-response from health workers: 6 (17%) at the ICS, 5 (14%) at the CFCS, 5 (14%) at the VSS, 6 (17%) at the CAP, 5 (14%) at the GMFCS, 6 (17%) at the MACS, 6 (17%) at the FOIS.