Abstract
Objective
The first aim of this study was to develop a Rasch-based crosswalk between 2 postconcussive
symptom measures, the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI) and the Rivermead Postconcussive
Symptom Questionnaire (RPQ). The second goal was to utilize Rasch analysis to formulate
a new proposed scale containing the best theoretical and psychometric items.
Design
Prospective cohort observational study.
Setting
Three acute inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in the United States.
Participants
Community-dwelling persons (N=497) who were previously hospitalized and were diagnosed
with mild to severe traumatic brain injury. Participants were (1) 18-64 years old;
(2) could give informed consent; (3) able to complete study measures in English; (4)
did not have an interfering medical or psychiatric condition.
Interventions
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures
NSI, RPQ.
Results
Rasch analysis revealed 4 subdimensions across the 2 scales: cognitive, affective,
physical, and visual. Crosswalk tables were generated for the first 3. Visual items
were too few to generate a crosswalk. Iterative Rasch analysis produced a new scale
with items rated from none to severe including the best items in each of these dimensions.
Conclusions
The NSI and RPQ have considerable overlap and measure the same overarching constructs.
Crosswalk tables may be helpful for clinicians and researchers to convert scores from
1 measure to the other. A more psychometrically sound scale, the Brain Injury Symptom
Scale, composed of items from the NSI and RPQ, is proposed and will need further validation.
Keywords
List of abbreviations:
BISx (Brain Injury Symptom), DIF (differential item functioning), GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale), NSI (Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory), PCA (principal component analysis), RPQ (Rivermead Postconcussive Symptom Questionnaire), TBI (traumatic brain injury)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
- Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in traumatic brain injury research.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 1650-1660
- Neuropsychiatric aspects of traumatic brain injury.Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2000; 2: 169-186
- Traumatic Brain Injury.(Available at:)https://commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/TBI.aspx#tab=Data StandardsDate accessed: December 1, 2017
- Persistent post-concussive syndrome: structure of subjective complaints after mild traumatic brain injury.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994; 75: 723
- The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire: a measure of symptoms commonly experienced after head injury and its reliability.J Neurol. 1995; 242: 587-592
- Psychometric study of the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory.J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49: 879-888
- Utility of the neurobehavioral symptom inventory as an outcome measure: a VA TBI model systems study.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017; 32: 46-54
- Postconcussive symptoms in OEF-OIF veterans: factor structure and impact of posttraumatic stress.Rehabil Psychol. 2009; 54: 270-278
- The structure of postconcussive symptoms in 3 US military samples.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2010; 25: 447-458
- Psychometric assessment of the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory-22: the structure of persistent postconcussive symptoms following deployment-related mild traumatic brain injury among veterans.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2012; 27: 55-62
- The structure of postconcussion symptoms on the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory: a comparison of alternative models.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015; 30: 1-11
- Principal components analysis of the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory in a nonclinical civilian sample.Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2017; 24: 522-531
- Emotional, neuropsychological, and organic factors: their use in the prediction of persisting postconcussion symptoms after moderate and mild head injuries.J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996; 61: 75-81
- Post-concussion symptoms after traumatic brain injury at 3 and 12 months post-injury: a prospective study.Brain Inj. 2009; 23: 489-497
- TBI and treatment response in a randomized trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017; 32: E35-E43
- Factor analysis of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire in mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury patients.J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2009; 21: 181-188
- Construct validity and reliability of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire.Clin Rehabil. 2005; 19: 878-887
- The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire: a confirmatory factor analysis.J Neurol. 2006; 253: 1603-1614
- Internal construct validity of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire.J Rehabil Med. 2011; 43: 997-1002
- Factor analysis of persistent postconcussive symptoms within a military sample with blast exposure.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015; 30: E34-E46
- Early prediction of favourable recovery 6 months after mild traumatic brain injury.J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008; 79: 936-942
- Population-based cohort study of the impacts of mild traumatic brain injury in adults four years post-injury.PLoS One. 2018; 13e0191655
- How severe should symptoms be before someone is said to be suffering from post-concussion syndrome? An exploratory study with self-reported checklist using Rasch analysis.Brain Inj. 2005; 19: 1117-1124
- Visual symptomatology and referral patterns for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans with traumatic brain injury.J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49: 1075-1082
- Key dimensions of impairment, self-report, and environmental supports in persons with traumatic brain injury.Rehabil Psychol. 2015; 60: 138-146
- Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness.J Appl Meas. 2002; 3: 85-106
- Rating scale instrument quality criteria.Rasch Meas Trans. 2007; 21: 1095
- Comparing and choosing between “Partial Credit Modes” (PCM) and “Rating Scale Modes” (RSM).Rasch Meas Trans. 2000; 14: 768
- Equating activities of daily living outcome measures: the Functional Independence Measure and the Korean version of Modified Barthel Index.Disabil Rehabil. 2018; 40: 217-224
- Translating measures across the continuum of care: using Rasch analysis to create a crosswalk between the Functional Independence Measure and the minimum data set.J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007; 44: 467-478
- Investigating rating scale category utility.J Outcome Meas. 1999; 3: 103-122
- Detecting multidimensionality: which residual data-type works best?.J Outcome Meas. 1998; 2: 266-283
- Critical eigenvalue sizes (variances) in standardized residual principal components analysis (PCA).Rasch Meas Trans. 2005; 19: 1012
- Reasonable mean-square fit values.Rasch Meas Trans. 1994; 8: 370
- Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences.2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ2007
- Test equating by common items and common subjects: concepts and applications.Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation. 2005; 10: 2
- Development of the participation assessment with recombined tools-objective for use after traumatic brain injury.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 542-551
- Another look at the PART-O using the traumatic brain injury model systems national database: scoring to optimize psychometrics.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016; 97: 211-217
- Dimensionality: contrasts & variances. A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministep Rasch-model computer programs (version 3.81.0).(Available at:)http://www.winsteps.com/winman/principalcomponents.htmDate accessed: December 4, 2018
- Neuropsychological outcome at 1-year post head injury.Neuropsychology. 1995; 9: 80-90
Article info
Publication history
Published online: May 23, 2019
Footnotes
Supported by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR grant no. 90RT5007; 90DP0013). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this article do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL, or HHS, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Identification
Copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
