Validity and Responsiveness of the Care and Needs Scale for Assessing Support Needs After Traumatic Brain Injury

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Cheryl Soo ; PhD^a ; ^b ; Robyn L. Tate ; PhD^a ; ^{rtate@med.usyd.edu.au" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Vanessa Aird ; BAppSc^c ; Jeanine Allaous ; BAppSc^c ; Stuart Browne ; FAFRM^c ; Belinda Carr ; BAppSc^c ; Carissa Coulston ; PhD^c ; ^d ; Louise Diffley ; BAppSc^e ; Joseph Gurka ; FAFRM^e ; Jill Hummell ; PhD^e
• 关键词：Brain injuries ; Needs assessment ; Rehabilitation ; Responsiveness ; Validity
• 刊名：Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• 出版年：2010
• 出版时间：June 2010
• 年：2010
• 卷：91
• 期：6
• 页码：905-912
• 全文大小：870 K

文摘

So C, Tate RL, Aird V, Allaous J, Browne S, Carr B, Coulston C, Diffley L, Gurka J, Hummell J. Validity and responsiveness of the Care and Needs Scale for assessing support needs after traumatic brain injury.

Objective

To investigate the validity and responsiveness of the Care and Needs Scale (CANS), which was designed to assess support needs of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Design

Two samples of community clients (n=38, n=30) were recruited to examine concurrent, convergent/divergent, and discriminant validity. The ability of the CANS to detect change over a 6-month period from the time of inpatient rehabilitation discharge (predictive validity and responsiveness) was investigated in a third sample of 40 rehabilitation inpatients.

Setting

Two Brain Injury Rehabilitation Units in Sydney, Australia.

Participants

People (N=108) aged between 16 and 70 years admitted for rehabilitation after TBI.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

The CANS, Supervision Rating Scale, FIM, Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale, and Disability Rating Scale.

Results

Evidence for concurrent validity was shown with fair to moderate correlation coefficients between the CANS and measures of supervision, functional independence, and psychosocial functioning (absolute value, r_s=.43–.68; P<.01). Support for convergent and divergent validity was provided by correlation coefficients that were higher for measures tapping similar constructs (absolute value, r_s=46; P<.01) but lower for measures of dissimilar constructs (absolute value, r_s=.07–.26; not significant). In addition, the CANS discriminated between levels of injury severity, functional independence, and overall functioning (P<.01). In terms of predictive validity and responsiveness, CANS scores at inpatient rehabilitation discharge predicted the participant's functioning 6 months later.

Conclusions

These results show the CANS is a valid and responsive tool and, together with its previously shown reliability, is suitable for routine application in clinical and research practice.