ArticleEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2025
Development and validation of interpretability cutoffs for the short forms of the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust Personality Questionnaires (BIRT-PQs).
Article in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious analyses demonstrated that Italian versions of the five short forms of the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust Personality Questionnaires (SF-BIRT-PQs) showed strong psychometric properties. However, evidence on their interpretability lacks.
aimTo calculate cutoffs for each of the SF-BIRT-PQ to discriminate between the subject's behavior that deviates significantly (D+) or not (D-) from the average of healthy individuals.
designMulticenter prospective study. POPULATION: One hundred and fifty-four subjects with acquired brain injury, their 154 caregivers, and 120 healthy subjects.
methodsSF-BIRT-PQs and disability measures were administered to the included subjects. Moreover, subjects scored the Satisfaction Profile (SAT-P) and disability measures, while the Caregiver Burden Inventory (CBI) and Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI) were administered to caregivers. Cutoffs between scores indicating D- or D+ patients were calculated with Z-scores, and Mann-Whitney Tests were used to assess the scores of the comparator instruments across the two groups (i.e., D+ and D-) generated by the cutoff for each SF-BIRT-PQs separately for the patient (using SAT-P, DRS, LCF) and caregiver samples (using CBI, FBI, DRS, LCF).
resultsCutoffs to discriminate between D+ and D- were identified (SF-BMQ ≥25 points, SF-BREQ ≥19 points, SF-BSCQ ≥14 points, SF-BDQ ≥15 points, SF-BIQ ≥18 points indicated D+). Generally, for the patients' sample, between-group comparisons showed significant differences between all SF-BIRT-PQs (except BDQ and BIQ) and the SAT-P subscales (P<0.05) but not with disability measures (P>0.05). In contrast, for the caregivers' sample, between-group comparisons showed significant differences between all SF-BIRT-PQs and the CBI and FBI subscales (P<0.05) but not with disability measures (P>0.05). A digital ruler was devised to convert raw scores into interval measures.
conclusionsWe provided evidence in support of the construct validity of the proposed cutoffs for each SF-BIRT-PQ. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: These cutoffs make the short forms of the BIRT-PQs interpretable by quantifying the amount of the patient's behavior divergence from that of the average healthy individual. The electronic rulers for each BIRT-PQ provide several functions that greatly facilitate the SF-BIRT-PQ administration and interpretation.
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.