Objectives: To provide further evidence of reliability and internal and external construct validity of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), which measures severity of postconcussion symptoms following head injury.
Design and setting: A cross-sectional study of consecutive patients presenting with a head injury in two urban teaching hospitals and a community trust.
Patients: Three hundred and sixty-nine patients returned a questionnaire from 1689 consecutive adult patients (18 years and above) referred to radiology for a skull X-ray following a head injury, and those who were currently under the care of a community-based multidisciplinary head injury team.
Method: Internal construct validity tested by fit to the Rasch Measurement model; external construct validity tested by correlations with Rivermead Head Injury Follow-up Questionnaire (RHFUQ); test-retest reliability tested by correlations at two-week intervals.
Outcome measures: Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire and Rivermead Head Injury Follow-up Questionnaire.
Main results: RPQ scores ranged from 0 to 64 (17.3% floor, 0.3% ceiling). Overall fit to the Rasch model was poor (item fit mean-0.416, SD=1.989, chi-squared=172.486, p < 0.01) suggesting a lack of unidimensionality. The items headaches, dizziness and forgetful displayed misfitting residuals and the first two items also displayed significant item trait fit statistics (p < 0.0006). After removing the items headaches, dizziness and subsequently nausea the RPQ demonstrated good fit at overall and individual item levels, both for the remaining 13 items (RPQ-13) and the three items (RPQ-3) which now formed a subsidiary scale. All items functioned consistently across age and gender. The RPQ-13 and RPQ-3 scales showed test-retest reliability coefficients of 0.89 and 0.72 (both p-values < 0.01) and positive correlations with RHFUQ scores (0.83 for RPQ-13, 0.62 for RPQ-3, both p-values< 0.01).
Conclusions: As currently used, the RPQ does not meet modern psychometric standards. Its 16 items do not tap into the same underlying construct and should not be summated in a single score. When the RPQ is split into two separate scales, the RPQ-13 and the RPQ-3, each set of items forms a unidimensional construct for people with head injury at three months post injury. These scales show good test-retest reliability and adequate external construct validity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Haboubi NHJ, Long J, Koshy M, Ward AB. Short term sequelae of minor head injury (6 years experience of minor head injury clinic). Disabil Rehabil2001; 23: 635-638.
2.
2 Swann I, Walker A. Who cares for the patient with head injury now?Emerg Med J2001; 18: 352-357.
3.
3 Tennant A. Admission to hospital following head injury in England: incidence and socio-economic associations. BMC Public Health2005, 5: 21-21.
4.
4 Tennant A. Epidemiology of head injury. In: Chamberlain MA, Neumann VC, Tennant A eds. Traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: services, treatments and outcomes. London: Chapman & Hall, 1995: 12-24.
5.
5 Suhr JA, Gunstad J. Post-concussive symptom report: the relative influence of head injury and depression. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol2002; 24: 981-993.
6.
6 Bazarian JJ, Atabaki S. Predicting post-concussion syndrome after minor traumatic brain injury. Acad Emerg Med2001; 8: 788-795.
7.
7 Mandel S. Minor head injury may not be ‘minor’. Postgrad Med1989; 85: 213-225.
8.
8 King N. Emotional, neuropsychological and organic factors: their use in the prediction of persisting post-concussion symptoms after moderate and mild head injuries. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1996; 61:75-81.
9.
9 King N. Mild head injury: neuropathology, sequelae, measurement and recovery. Br J Clin Psychol1997; 36: 161-184.
10.
10 World Health Organization. The ICD-9 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: clinical descriptions and clinical guidelines. Geneva: WHO, 1978.
11.
11 Bazarian JJ, Wong T, Harris M, Leahy N, Mookerjee S, Dombovy M. Epidemiology and predictors of post-concussive syndrome after minor head injury in an emergency population. Brain Injury1999; 13: 173-189.
12.
12 Dikmen S, Mclean A, Temkin N. Neuropsychological and psychosocial consequences of minor head injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1986; 49: 1227-1232.
13.
13 Bernstein DM. Recovery from mild head injury. Brain Injury1999; 13: 151-172.
14.
14 King NS, Crawford S, Wenden FJ, Moss NEG, Wade DT. The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire: a measure of symptoms commonly experienced after head injury and its reliability. J Neurol1995; 242: 587-592.
15.
15 Ingebrigtsen T, Waterloo K, Marup-Jensen S, Attner E, Romner B. Quantification of post concussion symptoms 3 months after minor head injury in 100 consecutive patients. J Neurol1998; 245: 609-612.
16.
16 Crawford S, Wenden FJ, Wade DT. The Rivermead Head Injury Follow up Questionnaire: a study of a new rating scale and other measures to evaluate outcome after head injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1996; 60: 510-514.
17.
17 Van Alphen A, Halfens R, Hasman A et al. Likert or Rasch? Nothing is more applicable than a good theory. J Adv Nurs1994; 20: 196-201.
18.
18 Banerji M, Smith RM, Dedrick RF. Dimensionality of an early childhood scale using Rasch analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. J Outcome Meas1997; 1:56-85.
19.
19 Smith RM. Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. J Appl Meas2000; 2: 199-228.
20.
20 Andrich D. Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika1978; 43: 561-573.
21.
21 Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika1982; 47: 149-174.
22.
22 Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model. Med Care2004; 42 (1 suppl): I-37-I-48.
23.
23 Gilworth G, Carey A, Eyers S, Neumann V, Tennant A. The development and validation of a work instability scale for traumatic head injury. Clin Rehabil2005; 19: 575-575 (abstract).
27 Ryan LM, Warden DL. Post concussion syndrome. Int Rev Psychiatry2003; 15: 310-316.
28.
28 Tennant A, Badley EM, Sullivan M. Investigating the proxy effect and the saliency principle in household-based postal questionnaires. J Epidemiol Community Health1991; 45: 312-316.
29.
29 Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. London: Sage, 1988.
