Patient-Reported Outcome of Functional Cognition for Traumatic Brain Injury: Item-Level Psychometrics

Abstract

A patient-reported functional cognition measure that can bridge neuropsychological tests and ecological validity is lacking. The purpose of this study was to present the initial item-level psychometrics of a functional cognition item bank, the Functional Cognition–Patient-Reported Outcome (FC-PRO). Confirmatory factor analysis, Rasch analysis, and convergent validity were conducted to establish item-level psychometrics of the FC-PRO item bank. Four of the six domains met essential unidimensionality criteria; all domains met rating scale criteria; domains had relatively few misfitting items (3%–13%); person reliability (.8–.92), and person strata (2.97–4.29) were satisfactory; the domains showed convergent validity for five of six domains. The FC-PRO showed adequate initial item-level psychometrics for researchers/clinicians to measure specific functional cognitive domains in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study provides the foundation for the development of future short forms, computer adaptive tests, and keyform recovery maps of patient-reported functional cognition to facilitate clinical utilization.

Keywords

brain injury cognition measurement psychometrics Rasch analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bond

T. G.

Fox

C. M.

(2013). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Psychology Press.

Box

G. E.

Draper

N. R.

(1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. John Wiley & Sons.

Brandt

Benedict

R. H.

(2001). Hopkins verbal learning test-revised: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cella

Nowinski

Peterman

Victorson

Miller

Lai

J.-S.

Moy

(2011). The neurology quality-of-life measurement initiative. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10), S28–S36.

Cella

Riley

Stone

Rothrock

Reeve

Yount

Amtmann

Bode

Buysse

Choi

(2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.

Christensen

K. B.

Makransky

Horton

(2017). May). Critical Values for Yen’s Q3: Identification of local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621616677520

Cook

K. F.

Monahan

P. O.

McHorney

C. A.

(2003). Delicate balance between theory and practice: Health status assessment and item response theory. Medical Care, 41(5), 571–574.

Coster

W. J.

Haley

S. M.

Ludlow

L. H.

Andres

P. L.

P. S.

(2004). Development of an applied cognition scale to measure rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(12), 2030–2035.

D’zurilla

T. J.

Nezu

A. M.

(1990). Development and preliminary evaluation of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2(2), 156.

10.

das Nair

Moreton

B. J.

Lincoln

N. B

. (2011, October). Rasch analysis of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(10), 944–950. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0858

11.

Donovan

N. J.

Heaton

S. C.

Kimberg

C. I.

Wen

P.-S.

Waid-Ebbs

J. K.

Coster

Singletary

Velozo

C. A.

(2011). Conceptualizing functional cognition in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Brain Injury, 25(4), 348–364.

12.

Frattali

C. M.

Thompson

C. M.

Holland

A. L.

Wohl

C. B.

Ferketic

M. M.

(1995). The FACS of life ASHA FACS—A functional outcome measure for adults. Asha, 37(4), 40–46.

13.

Frieden

T. R.

Houry

Baldwin

(2015). Report to Congress on traumatic brain injury in the United States: Epidemiology and rehabilitation. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention. Atlanta, GA.

14.

Giles

G. M.

Edwards

D. F.

Baum

Furniss

Skidmore

Wolf

Leland

N. E.

(2020). Making functional cognition a professional priority. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(1), 7401090010p1–7401090010p6.

15.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.

16.

IBM-Corp. (2020, Released). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. IBM Corp.

17.

Jette

Haley

(2005). Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(6), 339–345.

18.

Kean

Malec

J. F.

Altman

I. M.

Swick

(2011, May). Rasch measurement analysis of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4) in a community-based rehabilitation sample. Journal of Neurotrauma, 28(5), 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2010.1573

19.

La Porta

Franceschini

Caselli

Cavallini

Susassi

Tennant

(2011). Apr). Unified Balance Scale: An activity-based, bed to community, and aetiology-independent measure of balance calibrated with Rasch analysis. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(5), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0797

20.

Lewis

M. W.

Babbage

D. R.

Leathem

J. M.

(2011). Assessing executive performance during cognitive rehabilitation. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 21(2), 145–163.

21.

Linacre

(1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7, 328. Extrait de http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmtm.htm

22.

Linacre

J. M.

(2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85–106.

23.

Linacre

J. M.

(2013). Winsteps Rasch measurement computer program. (Version 3.8.1). [Computer software] www.winsteps.com

24.

Linacre

J. M.

(2022). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program user’s guide. Portland, Oregon. www.winsteps.com.

25.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

(2017). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables, user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.

26.

Prutting

C. A.

Kittchner

D. M.

(1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52(2), 105–119.

27.

Rabinowitz

A. R.

Levin

H. S.

(2014, March). Cognitive sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 37(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2013.11.004

28.

Ramp

Khan

Misajon

R. A.

Pallant

J. F.

(2009, June 22). Rasch analysis of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale MSIS-29. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 7, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-58

29.

Reeve

B. B.

Hays

R. D.

Bjorner

J. B.

Cook

K. F.

Crane

P. K.

Teresi

J. A.

Thissen

Revicki

D. A.

Weiss

D. J.

Hambleton

R. K.

(2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S22–S31.

30.

Roe

Damsgard

Fors

Anke

(2014). Mar 19). Psychometric properties of the pain stages of change questionnaire as evaluated by Rasch analysis in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 15, 95. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-95

31.

Roth

R. M.

Gioia

G. A.

Isquith

P. K.

(2005). BRIEF-A: Behavior rating inventory of executive function—Adult version. Psychological Assessment Resources.

32.

Sbordone

R. J.

(2001). Limitations of neuropsychological testing to predict the cognitive and behavioral functioning of persons with brain injury in real-world settings. Neurorehabilitation, 16(4), 199–201.

33.

Smith

A. B.

Rush

Fallowfield

L. J.

Velikova

Sharpe

(2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 1–11.

34.

Spitz

Ponsford

J. L.

Rudzki

Maller

J. J.

(2012). Association between cognitive performance and functional outcome following traumatic brain injury: A longitudinal multilevel examination. Neuropsychology, 26(5), 604.

35.

Stuss

Benson

Perecman

(1987). The frontal lobes revisited. The frontal lobes and control of cognition and memory (pp. 141–158). IRBN.

36.

Terwee

C. B.

Bot

S. D.

de Boer

M. R.

van der Windt

D. A.

Knol

D. L.

Dekker

Bouter

L. M.

de Vet

H. C.

(2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.

37.

Tulsky

D. S.

Kisala

P. A.

Victorson

Carlozzi

Bushnik

Sherer

Choi

S. W.

Heinemann

A. W.

Chiaravalloti

Sander

A. M.

(2016). TBI-QOL: Development and calibration of item banks to measure patient reported outcomes following traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 31(1), 40.

38.

Velozo

C. A.

(2021). Using measurement to highlight OTs distinct value. AJOT, 75, 1–12.

39.

Velozo

C. A.

Seel

R. T.

Magasi

Heinemann

A. W.

Romero

(2012). Improving measurement methods in rehabilitation: Core concepts and recommendations for scale development. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(8), S154–S163.

40.

Velozo

C. A.

Woodbury

M. L.

(2011). Translating measurement findings into rehabilitation practice: An example using Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity with patients following stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 48(10), 1211–1222.

41.

Wechsler

(2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale–fourth edition (WAIS–IV). Pearson.

42.

Wen

P.-S.

Waid-Ebbs

J. K.

Heaton

S. C.

Starosciak

A. K.

Gonzalez-Arias

(2021). Examining the item-level factor structure of the behavior rating inventory of executive function-adult version within a traumatic brain injury sample. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 103, 52–61.

43.

Whyte

Turkstra

L. S.

(2021). Building a theoretical foundation for cognitive rehabilitation. Brain, 144(7), 1933–1935.

44.

Wright

B. D.

Masters

G. N.

(1982). Rating scale analysis. MESA Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB