This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Eyres, S. Articles by Tennant, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Eyres, S. Articles by Tennant, A. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

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

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.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?