ArticleJournal of psychosocial rehabilitation and mental health2021
Rasch analysis of the Behavioral Assessment Screening Tool (BAST) in chronic traumatic brain injury.
Article in Journal of psychosocial rehabilitation and mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variability of the Behavioral Assessment Screening Tool for Mobile Health Using Ecological Momentary Assessment in Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026Article
- Convergent, discriminant, and known-groups validity of the Behavioural Assessment Screening Tool (BAST) in chronic traumatic brain injury.Brain impairment : a multidisciplinary journal of the Australian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment · 2025Article
- The Behavioral Assessment Screening Tool for Mobile Health (BASTArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Neurobehavioral Symptoms and Heart Rate Variability: Feasibility of Remote Collection Using Mobile Health Technology.The Journal of head trauma rehabilitationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Behavioral Assessment Screening Tool (BAST) measures neurobehavioral symptoms in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Exploratory Factor Analyses established five subscales: Negative Affect, Fatigue, Executive Function, Impulsivity, and Substance Abuse. In the current study, we assessed all the subscales except Substance Abuse using Rasch analysis following the Rasch Reporting Guidelines in Rehabilitation Research (RULER) framework. RULER identifies unidimensionality and fit statistics, item hierarchies, targeting, and symptom severity strata as areas of interest for Rasch analysis. The BAST displayed good unidimensionality with only one item from the Impulsivity scale exhibiting potential item misfit (MnSQ 1.40). However, removing this item resulted in a lower average domain measure (1.42 to -1.49) and higher standard error (0.34 to 0.43) so the item was retained. Items for each of the four subscales also ranged in difficulty (i.e. endorsement of symptom frequency) with more severe symptoms being endorsed in the Fatigue subscale and more mild symptoms being endorsed in the Impulsivity subscale. Though Negative Affect and Executive Function displayed appropriate targeting, the Fatigue and Impulsivity Subscales had larger average domain values (1.35 and -1.42) meaning that more items may need to be added to these subscales to capture differences across a wider range of symptom severity. The BAST displayed excellent reliability via item and person separation indices and distinct strata for each of the four subscales. Future work should use Rasch analysis in a larger, more representative sample, include more items for the Fatigue and Impulsivity subscale, and include the Substance Abuse subscale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.