4.2 Article

Personal Problems Questionnaire (PPQ): Normative Data and Utility in Assessing Acquired Neurological Impairment

Journal

ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 625-636

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/arclin/acy069

Keywords

Assessment; Malingering; Symptom validity testing; Traumatic brain injury; Normative studies; Everyday functioning

Funding

  1. St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The Personal Problems Questionnaire (PPQ) is a measure designed to assess acquired cognitive, emotional, and physical complaints. The present study sought to develop a normative database to allow clinicians and researchers to assess self-reported complaints among people with disabilities, and evaluate the response consistency and validity of their self-report. Method: 404 community-dwelling participants (n 200 males, 204 females) completed the PPQ, as well as an acquired brain injury (ABI) group (n 59), mainly following stroke and traumatic brain injuries, and seen for clinical (i.e., non-forensic) evaluations. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to derive norms from the healthy community sample taking into account age, gender, and educational level. Results: Normative T scores and cut-off points for the Clinical and Validity scales were derived, respectively, and used to assess the responses of the ABI group. The results indicated that the ABI group showed good response consistency and elevated scores on the Clinical scales, indicating that the PPQ is likely to be useful in detecting acquired disabilities. On the other hand, scores on the Validity scales were not elevated, indicating that the measures were unaffected by the ABI participants' cognitive difficulties. Conclusions: The PPQ provides a comprehensive assessment of complaints and response validity and the present study provides further data to assist with its use and interpretation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available