SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eyres, S.
Right arrow Articles by Tennant, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eyres, S.
Right arrow Articles by Tennant, A.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Concussion
*Traumatic Brain Injury
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Construct validity and reliability of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire

Sophie Eyres

Amy Carey

Gill Gilworth

Vera Neumann

Alan Tennant

Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Leeds, UK

Objectives: To provide further evidence of reliability and internal and external construct validity of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), which measures severity of postconcussion symptoms following head injury.

Design and setting: A cross-sectional study of consecutive patients presenting with a head injury in two urban teaching hospitals and a community trust.

Patients: Three hundred and sixty-nine patients returned a questionnaire from 1689 consecutive adult patients (18 years and above) referred to radiology for a skull X-ray following a head injury, and those who were currently under the care of a community-based multidisciplinary head injury team.

Method: Internal construct validity tested by fit to the Rasch Measurement model; external construct validity tested by correlations with Rivermead Head Injury Follow-up Questionnaire (RHFUQ); test-retest reliability tested by correlations at two-week intervals.

Outcome measures: Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire and Rivermead Head Injury Follow-up Questionnaire.

Main results: RPQ scores ranged from 0 to 64 (17.3% floor, 0.3% ceiling). Overall fit to the Rasch model was poor (item fit mean-0.416, SD=1.989, chi-squared=172.486, p < 0.01) suggesting a lack of unidimensionality. The items headaches, dizziness and forgetful displayed misfitting residuals and the first two items also displayed significant item trait fit statistics (p < 0.0006). After removing the items headaches, dizziness and subsequently nausea the RPQ demonstrated good fit at overall and individual item levels, both for the remaining 13 items (RPQ-13) and the three items (RPQ-3) which now formed a subsidiary scale. All items functioned consistently across age and gender. The RPQ-13 and RPQ-3 scales showed test-retest reliability coefficients of 0.89 and 0.72 (both p-values < 0.01) and positive correlations with RHFUQ scores (0.83 for RPQ-13, 0.62 for RPQ-3, both p-values< 0.01).

Conclusions: As currently used, the RPQ does not meet modern psychometric standards. Its 16 items do not tap into the same underlying construct and should not be summated in a single score. When the RPQ is split into two separate scales, the RPQ-13 and the RPQ-3, each set of items forms a unidimensional construct for people with head injury at three months post injury. These scales show good test-retest reliability and adequate external construct validity.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 19, No. 8, 878-887 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr905oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosi.Home page
N. Herrmann, M. J. Rapoport, R. D. Rajaram, F. Chan, A. Kiss, A. K. Ma, A. Feinstein, S. MCCullagh, and K. L. Lanctot
Factor Analysis of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire in Mild-to-Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury Patients
J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci, May 1, 2009; 21(2): 181 - 188.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Sports. Med.Home page
S Alla, S J Sullivan, L Hale, and P McCrory
Self-report scales/checklists for the measurement of concussion symptoms: a systematic review
Br. J. Sports Med., May 1, 2009; 43(Suppl_1): i3 - i12.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Biol Res NursHome page
E. Bay, A. Sikorskii, and Fuli Gao
Functional Status, Chronic Stress, and Cortisol Response After Mild-to-Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury
Biol Res Nurs, January 1, 2009; 10(3): 213 - 225.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Advertisement