Many college students with TBI rely on external strategies and supports to compensate for persistent memory, organization, and planning deficits that interfere with recalling and executing daily tasks. Practitioners know little, however, about the supports students with TBI choose for this purpose, the reasoning behind their choice, or preferred features of selected supports. The purpose of this study was to explore these issues.
METHOD:
We collected and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from eight college students with TBI for completion of a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods design. Data analysis included evaluation and triangulation of participant demographic information, survey responses about persistent post-injury symptoms, transcripts from semi-structured interviews about cognitive support devices and strategies, and ranking results about specific compensatory tools.
RESULTS:
Results suggest that college students with TBI prefer high-tech external supports—sometimes with the addition of low-tech, paper supports—to assist them in managing daily tasks. This preference related to features of portability, accessibility, and automatic reminders. An electronic calendar was the most-preferred high-tech support, and a paper checklist was the most-preferred low-tech support.
CONCLUSIONS:
Rehabilitation professionals should consider implementing high-tech supports with preferred characteristics during treatment given the preferences of students with TBI and the consequent likelihood of their continued long-term use following reintegration to community settings.
AckermanR., DiRamioD., & MitchellR. L. G. (2009). Transitions: Combat veterans as college students. New Directions for Student Services, 126, 5–14.
2.
AldrichE. M., & ObrzutJ. E. (2012). Assisting students with a traumatic brain injury in school interventions. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 291–301.
3.
AndersonP (2010). Towards a developmental model of executive functioning. In AndersonV.,
JacobsR., & AndersonP. (Eds.), Executive Functions and the Frontal Lobes (1–21). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
4.
ArciniegasD. B., HeldK., & WagnerF. (2002). Cognitive impairment following traumatic brain injury. Current Treatment Options in Neurology, 4, 43–57.
5.
BachL. J., & DavidA. S. (2006). Self-awareness after acquired and traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 16, 397–414.
6.
BeigelA. R. (2000). Assistive technology assessment: More than the device. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 237–243.
7.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
8.
BrandtJ., & BenedictR. (2001). Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised. Lutz, Florida: PAR Inc.
9.
BrownJ. A., & HuxK. (2016). Functional assessment of immediate task planning and execution by adults with acquired brain injury. NeuroRehabilitation, (Preprint), 1–13.
10.
BrownJ., HuxK., & SchmidtA. (2015). College Student Health and Academic Issues Relating to Brain Injury. American Speech-Language Hearing Association Annual Convention, Denver, CO.
11.
CatroppaC., AndersonV. A., MuscaraF., MorseS. A., HaritouF., RosenfeldJ. V., & HeinrichL. M. (2009). Educational skills: Long-term outcome and predictors following paediatric traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 19, 716–732.
12.
CiceroneK. D., DahlbergC., MalecJ. F., LangenbahnD. M., FelicettiT., KneippS., & CataneseJ. (2005). Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: Updated review of the literature from 1998 through 2002. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 1681–1692.
13.
CiceroneK. D., LangenbahnD. M., BradenC., MalecJ. F., KalmarK., FraasM., & AshmanT. (2011). Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: Updated review of the literature from 2003 through 2008. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92, 519–530.
14.
CreswellJ. W. (2007), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
CreswellJ. W. (2013), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
CushmanL. C., & SchererM. J. (Eds.). (1995). Psychological Assessment in Medical Rehabilitation.Washington, DC: APA Books.
17.
de JoodeE., van HeugtenC., VerheyF., & van BoxtelM. (2010). Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24(8), 701–714.
18.
de JoodeE., van HeugtenC., VerheyF. R. J., & van BoxtelM. P. J. (2013). Effectiveness of an electronic cognitive aid in patients with acquired brain injury: A multicentre randomised parallel-group study. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 23, 133–156.
19.
DePompeiR., GilletteY., GoetzE., Xenopoulos-OddssonA., BryenD., & DowdsM. (2008). Practical applications for use of PDAs and smartphones with children and adolescents who have traumatic brain injury. NeuroRehabilitation, 23, 487–499.
20.
DondersJ., OhY. I., & GableJ. (2015). Self-and informant ratings of executive functioning after mild traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 30(6), E30–E39.
21.
DowdsM., LeeP., & SheerJ. (2011). Electronic reminding technology following traumatic brain injury: Effects on timely task completion. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 26, 339–347.
22.
DoyleL., BradyA. M., & ByrneG. (2009). An overview of mixed methods research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 14, 175–185.
23.
EdwardsA. D., & ParksR. L. (2015). Traumatic Brain Injury and the Transition to College: Students’ Concerns and Needs. College and University, 90, 51–54.
24.
Ewing-CobbsL., BarnesM., FletcherJ. M., LevinH. S., SwankP. R., & SongJ. (2004). Modeling of longitudinal academic achievement scores after pediatric traumatic brain injury. Developmental Neuropsychology, 25, 107–133.
25.
FortunyL. A., BriggsM., NewcombeF., RatcliffG., & ThomasC. (1980). Measuring the duration of post traumatic amnesia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 43, 377–379.
26.
GilletteY., & DePompeiR. (2004). The potential of electronic organizers as a tool in the cognitive rehabilitation of young people. NeuroRehabilitation, 19, 233–243.
27.
GilletteY., & DePompeiR. (2008). Do PDAs enhance the organization and memory skills of students with cognitive disabilities?Psychology in the Schools, 45, 665–677.
28.
GioiaG. A., IsquithP. K., GuyS. C., & KenworthyL. (2000), Behavior rating inventory of executive function. Lutz, FL: PAR Inc.
29.
GlangA., EttelD., TylerJ. S., & TodisB. (2013). Educational issues and school reentry for students with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury Medicine: Principles and Practice (2nd ed.), edited by ZaslerND, KatzDI and ZafonteRD. New York, NY: Demos Medical Publishing602–620.
30.
GordonW. A., BrownM., SliwinskiM., PattiN., WeissM. J., KalinskyR., & HibbardM. R. (1998). The enigma of “hidden” traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 13(6), 39–56.
31.
GordonW. A., HaddadL., BrownM., HibbardM. R., & SliwinskiM. (2000). The sensitivity and specificity of self-reported symptoms in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 14, 21–33.
32.
GrajzelK., KlebeK., & GavettB. (2015). Level of Education Predicts Recovery of Executive Functioning Better than Injury Severity after Traumatic Brain Injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 30, 514–515.
33.
HarperM., & ColeP. (2012). Member checking: Can benefits be gained similar to group therapy?The Qualitative Report, 17, 510–517.
34.
HartT., BuchhoferR., & VaccaroM. (2004). Portable electronic devices as memory and organizational aids after traumatic brain injury: A consumer survey study. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 19, 351–365.
35.
HawleyC. A., WardA. B., MagnayA. R., & MychalkiwW. (2004). Return to school after brain injury. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 89, 136–142.
Helm-EstabrooksN. (2001), Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
38.
HendricksD. J., SampsonE., RumrillP., LeopoldA., EliasE., JacobsK., & Stauffer C. (2015). Activities and interim outcomes of a multi-site development project to promote cognitive support technology use and employement success among postsecondary students with traumatic brain injuries. NeuroRehabilitation, 37, 449–458.
39.
HuxK., BushE., ZickefooseS., HolmbergM., HendersonA., & SimanekG. (2010). Exploring the study skills and accommodations used by college student survivors of traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 24, 13–26.
40.
KelleyE., SullivanC., LoughlinJ. K., HutsonL., DahdahM. N., LongM. K., SchwabK. A., & PooleJ. H. (2014). Self-awareness and neurobehavioral outcomes, 5 years or more after moderate to severe brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 29, 147–152.
41.
KennedyM. R. T., & CoelhoC. (2005). Self-regulation after traumatic brain injury: A framework for intervention of memory and problem solving. Seminars in Speech and Language, 26, 242–255.
42.
KennedyM. R. T., KrauseM. O., & TurkstraL. S. (2008). An electronic survey about college experiences after traumatic brain injury. NeuroRehabiliation, 23, 511–520.
43.
KerteszA. (2006). Western Aphasia Battery-Revised.. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education, Inc.
44.
KrauseM., & RichardsS. (2014). Prevalence of traumatic brain injury and access to services in an undergraduate population: A pilot study. Brain Injury, 28, 1301–1310.
45.
LeopoldA., LourieA., PetrasH., & EliasE. (2015). The use of assistive technology for cognition to support the performance of daily activities for individuals with cognitive disabilities due to traumatic brain injury: The current state of the research. NeuroRehabilitation, 37, 359–378.
46.
LincolnY., & GubaE. (1985), Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
MartellaR. C., NelsonJ. R., MorganR. L., & Marchand-MartellaN. E. (2013), Understanding and interpreting educational research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
48.
MartinezS., & DavalosD. (2016). Investigating metacognition, cognition, and behavioral deficits of college students with acute traumatic brain injuries. Journal of American College Health, 64, 390–396.
49.
McAllisterT. W., & ArciniegasD. (2002). Evaluation and treatment of postconcussive symptoms. NeuroRehabilitation, 17, 265–283.
50.
McCroryP., MeeuwisseW. H., AubryM., CantuB., Dvorák J., EchemendiaR. J., & SillsA. (2013). Consensus statement on concussion in sport: The 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2012. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47, 250–258.
51.
MerriamS. B. (2009), Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
52.
MoustakasC. (1994), Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
OwnsworthT., QuinnH., FlemingJ., KendallM., & ShumD. (2010). Error self-regulation following traumatic brain injury: A single case study evaluation of metacognitive skills training and behavioural practice interventions. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 20, 59–80.
54.
PatelM., CoshallC., RuddA. G., & WolfeC. D. (2003). Natural history of cognitive impairment after stroke and factors associated with its recovery. Clinical Rehabilitation, 17, 158–166.
55.
PernaR., LoughanA. R., & TalkaK. (2012). Executive functioning and adaptive living skills after acquired brain injury. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 19, 263–271.
56.
ReitanR. M., & WolfsonD. (1985). Reitan Neuropsycholgical Test Battery: Therapy and clinical interpretation. The Halstead– –Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychological Press.
57.
RumrillP., EliasE., HendricksD. J., JacobsK., LeopoldA., NardoneA., & McMahonB. T. (2016). Promoting cognitive support technology use and employment success among postsecondary students with traumatic brain injuries. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 45, 53–61.
58.
SchererM. J. (1993), Living in the state of stuck: How technology impacts the lives of persons with disabilities, First Edition. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
59.
SchererM. J. (Ed.). (2002), Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation. Washington, DC: APA Books.
60.
SchererM. J. (2004). Connecting to Learn: Educational and Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities. Washington, DC: APA Books.
61.
SchererM. J. (2005). Assessing the benefits of using assistive technologies and other supports for thinking, remembering, and learning. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27, 731–739.
62.
SchererM. J., CoombsF. K., & HansenN. K. (2003). Policy issues in evaluating and selecting assistive technology and other resources for persons with disabilities, In Bridging gaps: Refining the disability research agenda for rehabilitation and the social sciences—Conference proceedings (pp. 165–186).
63.
SchererM. J., & CraddockG. (2002). Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology and Disability, 14, 125–131.
64.
ShanahanL., McAllisterL., & CurtinM. (2011). The Party Planning Task: A useful tool in the functional assessment of planning skills in adolescents with TBI. Brain Injury, 25, 1080–1090.
65.
ShererM., HartT., & NickT. G. (2003). Measurement of impaired self-awareness after traumatic brain injury: A comparison of the patient competency rating scale and the awareness questionnaire. Brain Injury, 17, 25–37.
66.
ShererM., HartT., NickT. G., WhyteJ., ThompsonR. N., & YablonS. A. (2003). Early impaired self-awareness after traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 168–176.
67.
SohlbergM. M., GriffithsG. G., & FickasS. (2014). An evaluation of reading comprehension of expository text in adults with traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 160–175.
68.
SpreenO., & BentonA. L. (1977). Neurosensory Center Comprehensive Examination for Aphasia. Victoria BC: University of Victoria, Neuropsychology Laboratory.
69.
StarksH., & TrinidadS. B. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative health research, 17, 1372–1380.
TogherL., Wiseman-HakesC., DouglasJ., Stergiou-KitaM., PonsfordJ., TeasellR., BayleyM., & TurkstraL. (2014). INCOG recommendations for management of cognition following traumatic brain injury, part IV: Cognitive communication. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 29, 353–368.
72.
TodisB., GlangA., BullisM., EttelD., & HoodD. (2011). Longitudinal investigation of the post-high school transition experiences of adolescents with traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 26, 138–149.
73.
VuJ. A., BabikianT., & AsarnowR. F. (2011). Academic and language outcomes in children after traumatic brain injury: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 77, 263–281.
74.
WallaceT., & BradshawA. (2011). Technologies and strategies for people with communication problems following brain injury or stroke. NeuroRehabilitation, 28, 199–209.
75.
YlvisakerM., & FeeneyT.J. (1996). Executive functions after traumatic brain injury: Supported cognition and self-advocacy. Seminars in Speech and Language, 17, 217–232.
76.
YlvisakerM., & FeeneyT. (2002). Executive functions, self-regulation, and learned optimism in pediatric rehabilitation: A review and implications for intervention. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 5, 51–70.
