研究报告:访谈与自我管理的回顾性脑损伤鉴定。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
John D Corrigan, Kathryn A Hyzak, Jennifer Bogner
{"title":"研究报告:访谈与自我管理的回顾性脑损伤鉴定。","authors":"John D Corrigan, Kathryn A Hyzak, Jennifer Bogner","doi":"10.1097/HTR.0000000000001083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>(1) Determine concordance between retrospective identification of a prior history of brain injury exposure when the method of administration is either interview or self-administered; and (2) Determine the test/retest reliability of self-administered identification.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>American Population Panel.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>In total, 391 (54% female; 70% white, non-Hispanic) self-selected from 54 000 panel participants aged 18 years or older living in the United States.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Descriptive measures of concordance and test/retest reliability. The concordance sample was randomized for order of administration.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) with additional questions on anoxic/hypoxic events and prior diagnosis of other acquired brain injuries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Substantial concordance was found for summary indices comparing OSU TBI-ID self-administered to interview results. High test/retest reliability was observed for most indices derived from the self-administered OSU TBI-ID. For both concordance and test/retest reliability, perfect agreement ranged from 85% to 90% for both the presence or absence of a history of any TBI, the presence or absence of a TBI that resulted in loss of consciousness, and the occurrence of repeated head impacts. Some indices of hypoxic/anoxic events could not be tested due to low frequency, but perfect agreement exceeded 90% for ever losing consciousness due to a drug overdose, or ever due to being choked or strangled. There was also very high perfect agreement for ever having been diagnosed with another acquired brain injury (91% for concordance; 89% for reliability).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that the psychometric properties of the self-administered OSU TBI-ID are comparable to those in the interview version. High concordance and test/retest reliability were also observed for identification of other sources of acquired brain injury. Findings for items used to capture certain anoxic/hypoxic events were also supported though low endorsement rates limited some analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":15901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research Letter: Interview Versus Self-Administration of Retrospective Brain Injury Identification.\",\"authors\":\"John D Corrigan, Kathryn A Hyzak, Jennifer Bogner\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HTR.0000000000001083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>(1) Determine concordance between retrospective identification of a prior history of brain injury exposure when the method of administration is either interview or self-administered; and (2) Determine the test/retest reliability of self-administered identification.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>American Population Panel.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>In total, 391 (54% female; 70% white, non-Hispanic) self-selected from 54 000 panel participants aged 18 years or older living in the United States.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Descriptive measures of concordance and test/retest reliability. The concordance sample was randomized for order of administration.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) with additional questions on anoxic/hypoxic events and prior diagnosis of other acquired brain injuries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Substantial concordance was found for summary indices comparing OSU TBI-ID self-administered to interview results. High test/retest reliability was observed for most indices derived from the self-administered OSU TBI-ID. For both concordance and test/retest reliability, perfect agreement ranged from 85% to 90% for both the presence or absence of a history of any TBI, the presence or absence of a TBI that resulted in loss of consciousness, and the occurrence of repeated head impacts. Some indices of hypoxic/anoxic events could not be tested due to low frequency, but perfect agreement exceeded 90% for ever losing consciousness due to a drug overdose, or ever due to being choked or strangled. There was also very high perfect agreement for ever having been diagnosed with another acquired brain injury (91% for concordance; 89% for reliability).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that the psychometric properties of the self-administered OSU TBI-ID are comparable to those in the interview version. High concordance and test/retest reliability were also observed for identification of other sources of acquired brain injury. Findings for items used to capture certain anoxic/hypoxic events were also supported though low endorsement rates limited some analyses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-08\",\"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.0000000000001083\",\"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.0000000000001083","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:(1)确定当给药方法为访谈或自我给药时,回顾性鉴定既往脑损伤暴露史之间的一致性;(2)确定自我识别的测试/重测信度。背景:美国人口小组。参与者:共391人(女性占54%;(70%为白人,非西班牙裔)从居住在美国的54000名18岁或以上的小组参与者中自我选择。设计:一致性和测试/重测信度的描述性测量。一致性样本按给药顺序随机化。主要测量方法:俄亥俄州立大学创伤性脑损伤识别方法(OSU TBI-ID),附加关于缺氧/缺氧事件和其他获得性脑损伤的先前诊断的问题。结果:比较OSU TBI-ID自我管理和访谈结果的总结指数发现了实质性的一致性。从自我给药的OSU TBI-ID得出的大多数指标的测试/重测信度很高。对于一致性和测试/再测试的可靠性,对于是否存在任何TBI病史,是否存在导致意识丧失的TBI,以及反复发生的头部撞击,完全一致性在85%到90%之间。由于频率低,一些低氧/缺氧事件的指标无法检测,但由于药物过量而失去意识或由于窒息或勒死而失去意识的完全一致性超过90%。曾经被诊断为另一种获得性脑损伤的人也有很高的完美一致性(91%的一致性;89%为可靠性)。结论:这些发现表明,自我给药的OSU TBI-ID的心理测量特征与访谈版本的心理测量特征相当。在鉴定获得性脑损伤的其他来源方面也观察到高一致性和测试/重测信度。虽然低认可率限制了一些分析,但用于捕获某些缺氧/缺氧事件的项目的发现也得到了支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Research Letter: Interview Versus Self-Administration of Retrospective Brain Injury Identification.

Objectives: (1) Determine concordance between retrospective identification of a prior history of brain injury exposure when the method of administration is either interview or self-administered; and (2) Determine the test/retest reliability of self-administered identification.

Setting: American Population Panel.

Participants: In total, 391 (54% female; 70% white, non-Hispanic) self-selected from 54 000 panel participants aged 18 years or older living in the United States.

Design: Descriptive measures of concordance and test/retest reliability. The concordance sample was randomized for order of administration.

Main measures: Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) with additional questions on anoxic/hypoxic events and prior diagnosis of other acquired brain injuries.

Results: Substantial concordance was found for summary indices comparing OSU TBI-ID self-administered to interview results. High test/retest reliability was observed for most indices derived from the self-administered OSU TBI-ID. For both concordance and test/retest reliability, perfect agreement ranged from 85% to 90% for both the presence or absence of a history of any TBI, the presence or absence of a TBI that resulted in loss of consciousness, and the occurrence of repeated head impacts. Some indices of hypoxic/anoxic events could not be tested due to low frequency, but perfect agreement exceeded 90% for ever losing consciousness due to a drug overdose, or ever due to being choked or strangled. There was also very high perfect agreement for ever having been diagnosed with another acquired brain injury (91% for concordance; 89% for reliability).

Conclusion: These findings suggest that the psychometric properties of the self-administered OSU TBI-ID are comparable to those in the interview version. High concordance and test/retest reliability were also observed for identification of other sources of acquired brain injury. Findings for items used to capture certain anoxic/hypoxic events were also supported though low endorsement rates limited some analyses.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信