ArticleThe Journal of head trauma rehabilitation
Research Letter: Interview Versus Self-Administration of Retrospective Brain Injury Identification.
Article in The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
settingAmerican Population Panel.
participantsIn 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.
designDescriptive 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.
resultsSubstantial 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).
conclusionThese 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.
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.