Abstract
Objective
To explore the factor structure of the Rehabilitation Needs Survey (RNS).
Design
Secondary analysis of observational cohort study who were 5-years post-traumatic brain
injury (TBI).
Setting
Five Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities.
Participants
Veterans enrolled in the TBI Model Systems longitudinal study who completed the RNS
at 5-year follow-up (N=378).
Main Outcome Measure(s)
RNS.
Results
RNS factor structure was examined with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblique
rotation. Analyses returned 2- and 3-factor solutions with Cronbach alphas ranging
from 0.715 to 0.905 and corrected item-total correlations that ranged from 0.279 to
0.732. The 2-factor solution accounted for 61.7% of the variance with ≥3 exclusively
loading items on each factor with acceptable internal consistency metrics and was
selected as the most parsimonious and clinically applicable model. Ad hoc analysis
found the RNS structure per the EFA corresponded with elements of the International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) conceptual framework. All
factors had adequate internal consistency (α≥0.70) and 20 of the 21 demonstrated good
discrimination (corrected item-total correlations≥0.40).
Conclusions
The 2-factor solution of the RNS appears to be a useful model for enhancing its clinical
interpretability. Although there were cross-loading items, they refer to complex rehabilitation
needs that are likely influenced by multiple factors. Alternatively, there are items
that may require alteration and redundant items that should be considered for elimination.
Keywords
List of abbreviations:
EFA (exploratory factor analysis), MAP (minimum average partial), RNS (Rehabilitation Needs Survey), TBI (traumatic brain injury), TBIMS (traumatic brain injury Model Systems), VA (Veterans Affairs)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
- Traumatic brain injury as a chronic health condition.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 1199-1201
- Functional change from five to fifteen years after traumatic brain injury.J Neurotrauma. 2021; 38: 858-869
- Epidemiology, severity classification, and outcome of moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a prospective multicenter study.J Neurotrauma. 2011; 28: 2019-2031
- Natural history of cognitive, affective, and physical symptoms of postconcussion syndrome following mild traumatic brain injury. National Library of Canada (Bibliothèque nationale du Canada).Ottawa. 2004;
- The chronic and evolving neurological consequences of traumatic brain injury.Lancet Neurol. 2017; 16: 813-825
- One and five year outcomes after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury requiring inpatient rehabilitation.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta (GA)2018
- Global outcome trajectories up to 10 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.Front Neurol. 2019; 10: 219
Levin HS, Shum DHK, Chan RCK, editors. Understanding traumatic brain injury: current research and future directions. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2014.
- Relationship of medical comorbidities to psychological health at 2 and 5 years following traumatic brain injury (TBI).Rehabil Psychol. 2021; 66: 107-117
- Rehospitalization in the first year following veteran and service member TBI: A VA TBI Model Systems study.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017; 32: 264-270
- Rehospitalization over 10 years among survivors of TBI: A National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems study.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017; 32: 147-157
- Measuring unmet needs and services among persons with traumatic brain injury.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83: 1052-1059
- Perceived needs following traumatic brain injury.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004; 19: 205-216
- Unmet service needs of persons with traumatic brain injury.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2007; 22: 1-13
- Development of the traumatic brain injury Rehabilitation Needs Survey: a Veterans Affairs TBI Model Systems study.Disabil Rehabil. 2022; 44: 4474-4484
- Unmet rehabilitation needs indirectly influence life satisfaction 5 years after traumatic brain injury: a Veterans Affairs TBI Model Systems study.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021; 102: 58-67
- Development of a traumatic brain injury model system within the Department of Veterans Affairs Polytrauma System of Care.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2014; 29: E1-E7
- Descriptive findings of the VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers TBI Model Systems national database.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; 99: 952-959
- Thirty years of National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research Traumatic Brain Injury Model System Centers research–an update.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2018; 33: 363-374
- Traumatic brain injury—practice based evidence study: design and patients, centers, treatments, and outcomes.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: S178-S196
- The Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 years: standing the test of time.Lancet Neurol. 2014; 13: 844-854
- Program FACTOR at 10: origins, development and future directions.Psicothema. 2017; 29: 236-241
- Maximum likelihood estimation of the Polychoric Correlation Coefficient.Psychometrika. 1979; 12: 443-460
- The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.Educ Psychol Meas. 1960; 20: 141-151
- The Guttman-Kaiser criterion as a predictor of the number of common factors.Statistician. 1982; 31: 221-229
- The scree test for the number of factors.Multivariate Behav Res. 1966; 1: 245-276
- Construct explication through factor or component analysis: a review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components.Goffin RD, Helmes E, editors. Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY2000 (41–71)
- A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.Psychometrica. 1965; 30: 179-185
- A beginner's guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis.Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2013; 9: 79-94
- Principal components and factor analysis.in: Tabachnick BG Fidell LS Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education, Harlow2014: 659-730
- The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education.Res Sci Educ. 2018; 48: 1273-1296
- Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective.7th ed. Upper Saddle River., Pearson2010
- Surveys in social research.5th ed. Routledge, London2004
- Developing e-service quality scales: a literature review.J Retail Consum Serv. 2010; 17: 464-477
- The international classification of functioning, disability and health: contemporary literature overview.Rehabil Psychol. 2005; 50: 113-121
- The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: a new tool for understanding disability and health.Disabil Rehabil. 2003; 25: 565-571
- Little jiffy, mark IV.Educ Psychol Meas. 1974; 34: 111-117
- Tests of significance in factor analysis.Br J Psychol. 1950; 3: 77-85
- Finding the magic number: investigating methods used to extract the number of factors in a factor analysis.Psychologist. 2008; 21: 866-867
- An empirical Kaiser criterion.Psychol Methods. 2017; 22: 450-466
- Skew and internal consistency.J Appl Psychol. 2006; 91: 1351-1358
Article info
Publication history
Published online: February 01, 2023
Accepted:
January 3,
2023
Received in revised form:
December 20,
2022
Received:
March 11,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofFootnotes
This research was supported in part by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) [grant nos. 90DPTB0011 (O'Neil-Pirozzi), 90DP0033 (Walker)], and the Defense Health Agency, Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, subcontract with General Dynamics Information Technology [HT0014-22-C-0016] (Richardson). This research was conducted with resources and the use of facilities at the Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center, James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Palo Alto VA Health Care System, and South Texas Veterans Health Care System.
Disclosures: The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Defense Health Agency, Department of Defense, or any other U.S. government agency. This work was prepared under Contract HT0014-22-C-0016 with DHA Contracting Office (CO-NCR) HT0014 and, therefore, is defined as U.S. Government work under Title 17 U.S.C.§101. Per Title 17 U.S.C.§105, copyright protection is not available for any work of the U.S. Government. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Identification
Copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.
