Participation after acquired brain injury: Clinical and psychometric considerations of the Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (SPRS)

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Volumn 43, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 609-618

  Tate, Robyn L ^a,b   Simpson, Grahame K ^a,c   Soo, Cheryl A ^a,d   Lane Brown, Amanda T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b ROYAL REHABILITATION CENTRE SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c LIVERPOOL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d MURDOCH CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Assessment; Brain injuries; Community integration; Participation; Psychometric properties

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRAIN INJURY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BRAIN INJURIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79961179284     PISSN: 16501977     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0829     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. DeLisa JA, Currie DM, Martin GM. Rehabilitation medicine: past, present and future. In: DeLisa JA, Gans BM, editors. Rehabilitation medicine: principles and practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998, p. 3-32.
2. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
3. Perenboom RJM, Chorus AMJ . Measuring participation according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 577-587. (Pubitemid 36806191)
4. Magasi S, Hammel J, Heinemann A, Whiteneck G, Bogner J. Participation: a comparative analysis of multiple rehabilitation stakeholdersapos perspectives. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 936-944.
5. Magasi S, Post MW. A comparative review of contemporary participation measuresapos psychometric properties and content coverage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91 Suppl 1: S17-S28.
6. Resnik L, Plow MA. Measuring participation as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: an evaluation of existing measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 856-866.
7. Reistetter TA, Abreu BC. Appraising evidence on community integration following brain injury: a systematic review. Occup Ther Int 2005; 12: 196-217. (Pubitemid 43009531)
8. Willer B, Rosenthal M, Kreutzer JS, Gordon WA, Rempel R. Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1993; 8: 75-87. (Pubitemid 23209406)
9. Whiteneck GG, Brooks CA, Charlifue S, Gerhart KA, Mellick D, Overholser D, et al. Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique. Englewood, CO: Craig Hospital; 1988/1992.
10. Tate R, Hodgkinson A, Veerabangsa A, Maggiotto S. Measuring psychosocial recovery after traumatic brain injury: Psychometric properties of a new scale. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1999; 14: 543-557. (Pubitemid 30027262)
11. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81 Suppl 2: S15-S20.
12. Tate RL. A compendium of tests, scales and questionnaires: the practitioneraposs guide to measuring outcomes after acquired brain impairment. Hove, UK: Psychology Press; 2010.
13. Tate RL, Pfaff A, Veerabangsa A, Hodgkinson AE. Measuring psychosocial recovery after brain injury: Change versus competency. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 538-545. (Pubitemid 38881041)
14. Draper K, Ponsford J, Schonberger M. Psychosocial and emotional outcomes 10 years following traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2007; 22: 278-287. (Pubitemid 47429014)
15. Kuipers P, Kendall M, Fleming J, Tate R. Comparison of the Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (SPRS) with the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ): administration and psychometric properties of two outcome measures. Brain Inj 2004; 18: 161-177. (Pubitemid 38232712)
16. Simpson G, Secheny T, Lane-Brown A, Strettles B, Ferry K, Phillips J. Post-acute rehabilitation for people with traumatic brain injury: a model description and evaluation of the Liverpool Hospital Transitional Living Program. Brain Impairment 2004; 5: 67-80.
17. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
18. Tesio L. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2003; 35: 105-115. (Pubitemid 36681702)
19. Malec JF, Lezak MD. Manual for the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4). 1st edn; 2003. Available from:http://www.tbims.org/combi/mpai.
20. Wilson BA, Clare L, Cockburn JM, Baddeley AD, Watson P, Tate R. Extended Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test. Bury St Edmunds, UK: Thames Valley Test Co.; 1999.
21. Lammi MH, Smith VH, Tate RL, Taylor CM. The minimally conscious state and recovery potential: a follow-up study 2-5 years after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 746-754. (Pubitemid 40487842)
22. Tate RL, Harris RD, Cameron ID, Myles BM, Winstanley JB, Hodgkinson AE, et al., on behalf of the Brain Injury Outcomes Study (BIOS) Group. Recovery of impairments after severe traumatic brain injury: findings from a prospective, multicentre study. Brain Impairment 2006; 7: 1-15.
23. Bode RK, Heinemann AW, Semik P. Measurement properties of the Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test (GOAT) and improvement patterns during inpatient rehabilitation. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2000; 15: 637-655. (Pubitemid 30127021)
24. Perdices M. How do you know whether your patient is getting better (or worse)? A useraposs guide. Brain Impairment 2005; 6: 219-226.
25. Ley P. Quantitative aspects of psychological assessment. An introduction. London: Duckworth; 1972.
26. Malec JF, Kragness M, Evans RW, Finlay KL, Kent A, Lezak, MD. Further psychometric evaluation and revision of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory in a national sample. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2003; 18: 479-492. (Pubitemid 37475423)
27. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 293-307.
28. Bogner JA, Corrigan JD, Bode RK, Heinemann AW. Rating scale analysis of the Agitated Behavior Scale. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2000; 15: 656-669. (Pubitemid 30127022)
29. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 127-132. (Pubitemid 24061483)
30. Tate RL. Measuring outcomes using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model, with special reference to participation and environmental factors. In: Levin H, Shum D, Chan R, editors. Traumatic brain injury: a review of the research and future directions. New York: Oxford University Press (in press).
31. Post MWM, de Witte LP, Reichrath E, Verdonschot MM, Wijlhuizen GJ, Perenboom RJM . Development and validation of IMPACT-S, an ICF-based questionnaire to measure activities and participation. J Rehabil Med 2008; 40: 620-627.
32. Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L, Bergeron H, Cloutier R, Dion S-A, St-Michel G. Social consequences of long term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. Int J Rehabil Res 1998; 21: 127-141. (Pubitemid 28328972)
33. World Health Organization. Disability assessment schedule. WHODAS II. 2000 cited 2009 Oct 15. Available from:http://www.who.int/icidh/whodas/index. html.
34. Kervick RB, Kaemingk KL. Cognitive appraisal accuracy moderates the relationship between injury severity and psychosocial outcomes in traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2005; 19: 881-889. (Pubitemid 41647814)