Coma recovery scalee-revised: Evidentiary support for hierarchical grading of level of consciousness

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 95, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 2335-2341

  Gerrard, Paul ^a   Zafonte, Ross ^a   Giacino, Joseph T ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Disorders of consciousness; Psychometrics; Rehabilitation; Traumatic brain injury

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN INJURY ASSESSMENT; COMA RECOVERY SCALE REVISED; CONSCIOUSNESS LEVEL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; AROUSAL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPREHENSION; CONSCIOUSNESS; CONSCIOUSNESS DISORDERS; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HEARING; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SPEECH; VISION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AROUSAL; COMPREHENSION; CONSCIOUSNESS; CONSCIOUSNESS DISORDERS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPEECH; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84922480408     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: 1532821X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.018     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Childs NL, Mercer WN, Childs HW. Accuracy of diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Neurology 1993; 43: 1465-7.
2. Andrews K, Murphy L, Munday R, Littlewood C. Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: Retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit. BMJ 1996; 313: 13-6.
3. Schnakers C, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Giacino J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: Clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment. BMC Neurol 2009; 9: 35.
4. Crick F, Koch C. Toward a neurobiological theory of consciousness. Semin Neurosci 1990; 2: 263-75.
5. Crick F, Koch C. A framework for consciousness. Nat Neurosci 2003; 6: 119-26.
6. Nelkin N. What is consciousness? Philos Sci 1993; 60: 419-34.
7. Tononi G, Edelman GM. Consciousness and complexity. Science 1998; 282: 1846-51.
8. Rees G, Kreiman G, Koch C. Neural correlates of consciousness in humans. Nat Rev Neurosci 2002; 3: 261-70.
9. Seth A. Explanatory correlates of consciousness: Theoretical and computational challenges. Cognit Comput 2009; 1: 50-63.
10. Vanhaudenhuyse A, Noirhomme Q, Tshibanda LJ, et al. Default network connectivity reflects the level of consciousness in noncommunicative brain-damaged patients. Brain 2010; 133: 161-71.
11. American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, Brain InjuryeInterdisciplinary Special Interest Group, Disorders of Consciousness Task Force: Seel RT, Sherer M, Whyte J, et al. Assessment scales for disorders of consciousness: Evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice and research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91: 1795-813.
12. Schnakers C, Majerus S, Giacino J, et al. A French validation study of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). Brain Inj 2008; 22: 786-92.
13. Giacino JT, Kalmar K, Whyte J. The JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: Measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 2020-9.
14. Lovstad M, Froslie KF, Giacino JT, Skandsen T, Anke A, Schanke AK. Reliability and diagnostic characteristics of the JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: Exploring the influence of rater's level of experience. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2010; 25: 349-56.
15. Noe E, Olaya J, Navarro MD, et al. Behavioral recovery in disorders of consciousness: A prospective study with the Spanish version of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: 428-33. e12.
16. Giacino JT, Kalmar K, Chase R. The JFK Coma Recovery Scale: Further evidence for applicability in grading level of neurobehavioral responsiveness following severe brain injury [abstract]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 662.
17. Zumbo B. Validity: Foundational issues in statistical methodology. In: Rao CR, Sinharay S, editors. Handbook of statistics 26. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 2007. p 45-79.
18. Sijtsma K, Verweij AC. Mokken scale analysis: Theoretical considerations and an application to transitivity tasks. Appl Meas Educ 1992; 5: 355-73.
19. Meijer RR, Sijtsma K. Theoretical and empirical comparison of the Mokken and the Rasch approach to IRT. Appl Psychol Meas 1990; 14: 283-98.
20. Mokken RJ, Lewis C. A nonparametric approach to the analysis of dichotomous item responses. Appl Psychol Meas 1982; 6: 417-30.
21. Ramsay J. Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation. Psychometrika 1991; 56: 611-30.
22. La Porta F, Caselli S, Ianes AB, et al. Can we scientifically and reliably measure the level of consciousness in vegetative and minimally conscious states? Rasch analysis of the Coma Recovery Scale Revised. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 527-35.
23. Giacino JT, Whyte J, Bagiella E, et al. Placebo-controlled trial of amantadine for severe traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 819-26.
24. Takane Y, De Leeuw J. On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika 1987; 52: 393-408.
25. Kamata A, Bauer D. A note on the relation between factor analytic and item response theory models. Sruct Equ Modeling 2008; 15: 136-53.
26. Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 2007; 45(5 Suppl 1): S22-31.
27. Velozo CA, Seel RT, Magasi S, Heinemann A, Romero S. Improving measurement methods in rehabilitation: Core concepts and recommendations for scale development. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93(Suppl 2): S154-63.
28. Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 2012; 48: 1-36.
29. Bentler PM, Hu L-T. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods 1998; 2: 424-53.