4.3 Article

What domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health are covered by the most commonly used measurement instruments in traumatic brain injury research?

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
Volume 114, Issue 6, Pages 645-650

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.12.038

Keywords

ICF Core Set; Neurorehabilitation; Traumatic brain injury; Linking; Outcome measures; International classification of functioning; Disability and health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To identify the most frequently used outcome measurement instruments reported in clinical studies on TBI and to provide a content comparison in the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Patients and methods: A systematic literature review of clinical studies in TBI was performed using Medline, EMBASE and PsychINFO. The items of the measurement instruments present in more than 20% of the studies were linked to the ICF language. Results: 193 papers fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The frequency analysis identified six instruments: Functional Independence Measure (50%), Glasgow Outcome Scale (34%), Disability Rating Scale (32%), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (29%), Trail Making Test (26%) and Community Integration Questionnaire (22%). The analysed instruments focus on different aspects of body functions (especially DRS, WAIS and TMT) and aspects of activities and participation in life (especially CIQ and FIM). Inter-researcher agreement for the ICF linking process was 0.83. Conclusions: Translating the items of different measurement instruments into the ICF language provides a practical tool to facilitate content comparisons among different outcome measures. The comparison can assist clinical researchers to integrate information acquired from different studies and different tools. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available