对创伤性脑损伤量表(CM-TBI)常见误解的再认识它真正衡量的是什么?

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Christine Padgett, Hoang Nguyen, Peta S Cook, Olivia Hannon, Kathleen Doherty, Jenna Ziebell, Claire Eccleston
{"title":"对创伤性脑损伤量表(CM-TBI)常见误解的再认识它真正衡量的是什么?","authors":"Christine Padgett, Hoang Nguyen, Peta S Cook, Olivia Hannon, Kathleen Doherty, Jenna Ziebell, Claire Eccleston","doi":"10.1097/HTR.0000000000001059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the factor structure and validity of the 40-item common misconceptions in traumatic brain injury (CM-TBI) scale, and to develop and evaluate additional concussion-focussed items to broaden the instrument's scope.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A purposive sample of 988 participants from across all habitable continents (M age 43, range 16-90 years, 84% female) completed the CM-TBI and 5 additional concussion items at commencement of an online course on TBI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Item analysis resulted in the removal of 19 items due to ambiguous wording and poor conceptual integrity, and/or low discrimination and low inter-item correlations. An exploratory factor analysis on the remaining 26 items revealed a 3-factor model had best fit, with an additional 8 items removed due to low or cross-loadings, low communalities, and/or low conceptual relevance, resulting in an 18-item revised scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no psychometric support for the current structure of the CM-TBI. This is likely due to changes in understanding of TBI since the scale's inception, and issues of conceptual ambiguity. It is also proposed that a distinction must be made between knowledge and misconceptions, as these are 2 related but different constructs that are not clearly delineated in the current CM-TBI. Using the revised scale here offers researchers a more modern, focussed, and valid measure, but a new scale to measure knowledge and misconceptions in TBI is urgently needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":15901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting the Common Misconceptions About Traumatic Brain Injury Scale (CM-TBI); What Does It Really Measure?\",\"authors\":\"Christine Padgett, Hoang Nguyen, Peta S Cook, Olivia Hannon, Kathleen Doherty, Jenna Ziebell, Claire Eccleston\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HTR.0000000000001059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the factor structure and validity of the 40-item common misconceptions in traumatic brain injury (CM-TBI) scale, and to develop and evaluate additional concussion-focussed items to broaden the instrument's scope.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A purposive sample of 988 participants from across all habitable continents (M age 43, range 16-90 years, 84% female) completed the CM-TBI and 5 additional concussion items at commencement of an online course on TBI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Item analysis resulted in the removal of 19 items due to ambiguous wording and poor conceptual integrity, and/or low discrimination and low inter-item correlations. An exploratory factor analysis on the remaining 26 items revealed a 3-factor model had best fit, with an additional 8 items removed due to low or cross-loadings, low communalities, and/or low conceptual relevance, resulting in an 18-item revised scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no psychometric support for the current structure of the CM-TBI. This is likely due to changes in understanding of TBI since the scale's inception, and issues of conceptual ambiguity. It is also proposed that a distinction must be made between knowledge and misconceptions, as these are 2 related but different constructs that are not clearly delineated in the current CM-TBI. Using the revised scale here offers researchers a more modern, focussed, and valid measure, but a new scale to measure knowledge and misconceptions in TBI is urgently needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000001059\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000001059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨创伤性脑损伤(CM-TBI)量表中40项常见误解的因子结构和效度,并开发和评估额外的脑震荡重点项目,以扩大该量表的适用范围。方法:在TBI在线课程开始时,对来自所有可居住大陆的988名参与者(年龄43岁,16-90岁,84%为女性)完成CM-TBI和5个额外的脑震荡项目。结果:项目分析导致删除了19个项目,原因是措辞模糊、概念完整性差,和/或低歧视和低项目间相关性。对剩余的26个项目进行探索性因子分析,发现3因素模型最适合,由于低负荷或交叉负荷、低共同性和/或低概念相关性,另外8个项目被删除,导致18个项目的修订量表。结论:CM-TBI目前的结构没有心理测量学支持。这可能是由于自量表开始以来对创伤性脑损伤的理解发生了变化,以及概念模糊的问题。本文还提出,必须区分知识和误解,因为这是两个相关但不同的构念,在当前的CM-TBI中没有明确描述。使用修订后的量表为研究人员提供了一个更现代、更集中、更有效的测量方法,但迫切需要一个新的量表来衡量对创伤性脑损伤的认识和误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting the Common Misconceptions About Traumatic Brain Injury Scale (CM-TBI); What Does It Really Measure?

Objective: To examine the factor structure and validity of the 40-item common misconceptions in traumatic brain injury (CM-TBI) scale, and to develop and evaluate additional concussion-focussed items to broaden the instrument's scope.

Method: A purposive sample of 988 participants from across all habitable continents (M age 43, range 16-90 years, 84% female) completed the CM-TBI and 5 additional concussion items at commencement of an online course on TBI.

Results: Item analysis resulted in the removal of 19 items due to ambiguous wording and poor conceptual integrity, and/or low discrimination and low inter-item correlations. An exploratory factor analysis on the remaining 26 items revealed a 3-factor model had best fit, with an additional 8 items removed due to low or cross-loadings, low communalities, and/or low conceptual relevance, resulting in an 18-item revised scale.

Conclusion: There is no psychometric support for the current structure of the CM-TBI. This is likely due to changes in understanding of TBI since the scale's inception, and issues of conceptual ambiguity. It is also proposed that a distinction must be made between knowledge and misconceptions, as these are 2 related but different constructs that are not clearly delineated in the current CM-TBI. Using the revised scale here offers researchers a more modern, focussed, and valid measure, but a new scale to measure knowledge and misconceptions in TBI is urgently needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
153
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation is a leading, peer-reviewed resource that provides up-to-date information on the clinical management and rehabilitation of persons with traumatic brain injuries. Six issues each year aspire to the vision of “knowledge informing care” and include a wide range of articles, topical issues, commentaries and special features. It is the official journal of the Brain Injury Association of America (BIAA).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信