A systematic review of assessment tools for adults used in traumatic brain injury research and their relationship to the ICF

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Good assessment is an essential component of effective patient management. Yet the sheer volume of available assessment instruments presents a barrier for the clinician or researcher to (a) be knowledgeable about suitable measures and (b) keep up-to-date with new measures that are published. In order to create a resource of currently-used measures, we conducted a systematic review of assessment tools used in the research literature on traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We used two electronic databases (Medline and PsycINFO) to identify full-length, English-language articles published between 2000 and 2012 in which outcome in adults with TBI was assessed with behavioural tests or questionnaires. RESULTS: The searches yielded 5,735 articles and after deletion of duplicates (n = 1,383) and articles not meeting selection criteria (n = 1,759), 2,593 articles were further examined. The articles contained 910 behavioural instruments, with a final set of 728 unique instruments. Each instrument was classified against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Half of the instruments (n = 370, 50.8%) evaluated the mental functions domain of the ICF body functions component, with a substantially smaller proportion (n = 64, 8.8%) examining specific motor-sensory and other body functions. Instruments also covered domains of activities/participation (n = 109, 15.0%), environmental factors (n = 22, 3.0%) and personal factors (n = 36, 4.9%). A substantial number of scales (n = 93, 12.8%) were multidimensional across the body function domains (n = 32), as well as the functioning and disability part of the ICF (n = 60). The remaining 5% of instruments addressed concepts not covered by the ICF, including quality of life (n = 19, 2.6%) and rehabilitation process tools (such as therapeutic alliance). The 728 instruments were listed and more than 70 of the most common, spread across 20 domains, were highlighted. CONCLUSION: These data provide a comprehensive and up-to-date resource that gives the researcher or clinician a very large selection of assessment instruments covering the major areas of function pertinent to TBI.

Traumatic Brain Injury, Sleep Quality, and Suicidal Ideation in Iraq/Afghanistan Era Veterans

“…This finding is in contrast to the existing literature supporting a direct association between TBI and current suicidal ideation. Possible reasons for this discrepancy could be the way in which TBI, sleep, and suicidal ideation were measured across studies, as there can be variation in the operationalization and assessment of TBI (e.g., McCrea et al, 2008; Tate et al, 2013), sleep (e.g., Rosipal et al, 2013; Troxel et al, 2010), and suicidal ideation (e.g., Batterham et al, 2015). For example, the current study only assessed deployment-related TBI and not lifetime TBI.…”

Development of a patient-reported outcome: The Neck OutcOme Score (NOOS) – Content and construct validity

“…Prior to item generation, the concepts being measured need to be clearly defined. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) (14) bio-psycho-social framework is commonly used for the development of PROs (15) and the efficacy of a given treatment is often evaluated based on content related to the classification codes (16). The ICF includes 3 domains: body functions and structure, activity, and participation (14).…”

Functional resting-state fMRI connectivity correlates with serum levels of the S100B protein in the acute phase of traumatic brain injury

“…GOS has been criticized for being too crude in its assessment of outcome, hence a new 8-grade scale GOS extended (GOSE) has been introduced (Teasdale et al, 1998). Moreover, there are other assessment scales for cognitive-, motor- and memory functions as well as depression following TBI (Tate et al, 2013). While we have recently introduced GOSE, which is considered the golden standard for functional outcome following TBI, we unfortunately do not have any other assessments available for these patients.…”