Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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
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 arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Baalen, B
Right arrow Articles by Stam, H J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Baalen, B
Right arrow Articles by Stam, H J
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 20, No. 8, 686-700 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215506cre982oa
© 2006 SAGE Publications

Reliability and sensitivity to change of measurement instruments used in a traumatic brain injury population

B van Baalen

Erasmus MC, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands; j.t.m.vanbaalen{at}erasmusmc.nl

E Odding

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam

M PC van Woensel

M A van Kessel

Rijndam Rehabilitation Center, Rotterdam

M E Roebroeck

H J Stam

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Objective: To compile a minimum data set for the follow-up of traumatic brain injury patients from discharge from hospital to one year post injury to assess functioning and participation in the physical, cognitive and psychosocial domains, and in quality of life.

Design: Repeated questionnaire interviews by two observers to establish interobserver reliability of the measurement instruments at discharge and at one year post injury, as well as their sensitivity to change over time in traumatic brain injury patients.

Setting: Department of neurosurgery of an academic hospital, department of a rehabilitation centre, and at the patients' homes in the Netherlands.

Subjects: The study at discharge included 25 patients aged 18-50 years with a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score 3-14), whereas the one year post injury study included 14 patients aged 19-51 years.

Main (outcome) measures: Physical domain: Barthel Index (BI), Functional Independence Measurement (FIM), Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), GOS Extended (GOSE). Cognitive domain: Disability Rating Scale (DRS), Functional Assessment Measurement (FAM), Levels of Cognitive Functioning Scale (LCFS), Neurobehavioural Rating Scale (NRS). Psychosocial domain: Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ), Employability Rating Scale (ERS), Frenchay Activity Index (FAI), Multi Health Locus of Control (MHLC), Rehabilitation Activities Profile (RAP), Social Support List (SSL), Supervision Rating Scale (SRS), Wimbledon Self Reporting Rating Scale (WSRS). Quality of life: Coop/Wonca Charts (Coop), Rand SF-36 (Rand-36), Sickness Impact Profile-68 (SIP-68).

Results: At both discharge and at one year post injury, in the physical domainthe FIM showed excellent squared weighted kappa (SWK ranging from 0.75 to 0.80), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC ranging from 0.75 to 0.92), and a relatively small standard error of measurement (SEM 3.22) and smallest detectable difference (SDD 8.92). In the cognitive domain the FAM and the NRS showed excellent SWK, and ICC, and a relatively small SEM and SDD. In the psychosocial domainthe FAI showed excellent SWK (0.89), and ICC (0.87), and a relatively small SEM (2.64) and SDD (7.31). For quality of life, at both discharge and at one year post injury the SIP-68 and the Coop showed excellent SWK (0.87), and ICC (0.89), and a relatively small SEM (3.79) and SDD (10.51). At both time points SWK and ICC ranged from 0.80 to 0.89, SEM ranged from 1.47 to 1.98, and the SDD was 4.07.

Conclusions: An example of a reliable minimum data set that is also able to detect changes over time is: the FIM, the FAM and the Coop for the early stages in recovery, extended with the NRS, the FAI, and the SIP-68 later in recovery, thereby covering all relevant domains after traumatic brain injury.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
M. W.M. Post, H. Festen, I. G. van de Port, and J. M.A. Visser-Meily
Reproducibility of the Caregiver Strain Index and the Caregiver Reaction Assessment in partners of stroke patients living in the Dutch community
Clinical Rehabilitation, November 1, 2007; 21(11): 1050 - 1055.
[Abstract] [PDF]