4.5 Article

Reliability and Construct Validity of the TBI-QOL Communication Short Form as a Parent-Proxy Report Instrument for Children With Traumatic Brain Injury

期刊

出版社

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0074

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Grant [U01CE002196]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the internal consistency and construct validity of the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life Communication Item Bank (TBI-QOL COM) short form as a parent-proxy report measure. The TBI-QOL COM is a patient-reported outcome measure of functional communication originally developed as a self-report measure for adults with traumatic brain injury (TM), but it may also be valid as a parent-proxy report measure for children who have sustained TBI. Method: One hundred twenty-nine parent-proxy raters completed the TBI-QOL COM short form 6 months postinjury as a secondary aim of a multisite study of pediatric TBI outcomes. The respondents' children with TBI were between 8 and 18 years old (M-age= 13.2 years old) at the time of injury, and the proportion of TBI severity mirrored national trends (73% complicated-mild; 27% moderate or severe). Results: The parent-proxy report version of the TBI-QOL COM displayed strong internal consistency (ordinal alpha = .93). It also displayed evidence of known-groups validity by virtue of more severe injuries associated with more abnormal scores. The instrument also showed evidence of convergent and discriminant validity by displaying a pattern of correlations with other constructs according to their conceptual relatedness to functional communication. Conclusions: This preliminary psychometric investigation of the TBI-QOL COM supports the further development of a parent report version of the instrument. Future development of the TBI-QOL COM with this population may include expanding the content of the item bank and developing calibrations specifically for parent-proxy raters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据