4.3 Article

Development and Psychometric Characteristics of the TBI-QOL Communication Item Bank

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEAD TRAUMA REHABILITATION
Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 326-339

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000528

Keywords

communication; language; patient-reported outcome measures; psychometrics; traumatic brain injuries

Funding

  1. National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) [H133G070138, H133A070037, H133A070043, H133A080045, H133A080044, H133A70038]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To develop an item response theory (IRT)-based patient-reported outcome measure of functional communication for adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Setting: Five medical centers that were TBI Model Systems sites. Participants: A total of 569 adults with TBI (28% complicated-mild; 13% moderate; and 58% severe). Design: Grounded theory-based qualitative item development, large-scale item calibration testing, confirmatory factor analyses, psychometric analyses with graded response model IRT. Main Measure: Traumatic Brain Injury-Quality of Life (TBI-QOL) Communication Item Bank, version 1.0. Results: From an initial pool of 48 items, 31 items were retained in the final instrument based on adequate fit to a unidimensional model and absence of bias across several demographic and clinical subgroupings. The TBI-QOL Communication Item Bank demonstrated excellent score precision (reliability >= 0.95) across a wide range of communication impairment levels, particularly for individuals with more severe difficulties. The TBI-QOL Communication Item Bank is available as a full item bank, fixed-length short form, and as a computerized adaptive test. Conclusions: The TBI-QOL Communication Item Bank permits precise measurement of patient-reported functional communication after TBI. Future development will validate the instrument against performance-based, clinician-reported, and surrogate-reported assessments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available