An audio podcast accompanies this article.
Listen at www.archives-pmr.org.
1
and the Disability Rating Scale (DRS)
2
represent a desire for a single outcome score that can be used to track the progression
of a patient with brain injury (BI) from coma to community. Although the GOS/GOSE
and DRS have been rightly criticized for their psychometric and other limitations,
3
,
4
,
5
these scales span the major domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health—that is, bodily functions, activities, and participation.
6
These early outcomes scales also map directly onto the conceptual domains identified
as representing outcome in 2010 by the Common Data Elements (CDE) Task Force (fig 1). Two of the areas targeted by the CDE Task Force but not explicitly mentioned by
the GOSE and DRS—behavioral function and neuropsychological impairment—may be considered
more detailed and objective measurements of cognitive limitations that are clearly
targeted as outcome indicators by both the GOSE and DRS. The additional domains identified
by the CDE Task Force (health economic measures, patient-reported outcomes) represent,
in the former case, an outcome indicator that does not reside within the person with
BI, and in the latter case, a domain that overlaps with other domains.
Fig 1Brain injury outcome domains and recommended measures. Abbreviations: CHART-SF, The
Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique–Short Form; PART, Participation
Assessment with Recombined Tools; TBI, traumatic brain injury.
List of abbreviations:
BI (brain injury), CDE (Common Data Elements), DRS (Disability Rating Scale), GOS (Glasgow Outcome Scale), GOSE (Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended), SES (socioeconomic status), TBIMS (Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use.J Neurotrauma. 1998; 15: 573-585
- Disability Rating Scale for severe head trauma: coma to community.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982; 63: 118-123
- Glasgow Outcome Scale and Disability Rating Scale: comparative usefulness in following recovery in traumatic head injury.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985; 66: 35
- Assessing traumatic brain injury outcome measures for long-term follow-up of community-based individuals.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82: 367-374
- Characteristics and comparisons of functional assessment indices: Disability Rating Scale, Functional Independence Measure, and Functional Assessment Measure.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1993; 8: 60-74
- International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF.World Health Organization, Geneva2001
- The Satisfaction With Life Scale.J Pers Assess. 1985; 49: 71-75
- Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective.Psychol Bull. 1991; 110: 305-314
- Latent factors in measures of rehabilitation outcomes after traumatic brain injury.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004; 19: 445-458
- The challenges of fitting an item response theory model to the Social Anhedonia Scale.J Pers Assess. 2011; 93: 213-224
- The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years.Med Care. 2007; 45: S3-11
- A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research.J Consum Res. 2003; 30: 199-218
- Reconsidering formative measurement.Psychol Methods. 2007; 12: 205-218
- The concept of validity.Psychol Rev. 2004; 111: 1061-1071
- How robust are hospital ranks based on composite performance measures?.Med Care. 2005; 43: 1177-1184
- The fallacy of formative measurement.Organ Res Methods. 2011; 14: 370-388
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 11, 2014
Footnotes
Supported by a Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Rehabilitation Research and Development Career Development Award to Kean (award no. CDA IK2RX000879), and by the Health Services Research and Development Service (grant no. CIN 13-416). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Disclosures: none.
Identification
Copyright
© 2014 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
