No Cover Image

Journal article 1261 views 340 downloads

Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC

Nick Alderman, Aimee Pink, Claire Williams Orcid Logo, Sara da Silva Ramos, Michael Oddy, Caroline Knight, Keith G Jenkins, Michael P Barnes, Chloë Hayward

Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, Volume: 30, Issue: 7, Pages: 1318 - 1347

Swansea University Authors: Aimee Pink, Claire Williams Orcid Logo

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1080/09602011.2019.1582432

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of neurobehavioural rehabilitation (NbR) programmes, services should employ valid, reliable assessment tools; the ability to detect change on repeated assessment is a particular requirement. The United Kingdom Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative (UKROC) requires neurorehab...

Full description

Published in: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
ISSN: 0960-2011 1464-0694
Published: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Informa UK Limited 2020
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa48913
Abstract: To evaluate the efficacy of neurobehavioural rehabilitation (NbR) programmes, services should employ valid, reliable assessment tools; the ability to detect change on repeated assessment is a particular requirement. The United Kingdom Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative (UKROC) requires neurorehabilitation services to collect data using a standardised basket of measures, but the responsiveness and usefulness of using these in the context of NbR remains unknown. Anonymous data collected at two assessments for 123 people was studied using multiple methods to determine responsiveness of four outcome measures routinely used in NbR (HoNOS-ABI, FIM+FAM UK, MPAI-4, SASNOS). Predictive validity of two measures of rehabilitation complexity (RCS-E, SRS) regarding the extent of difference scores on these outcome measures at reassessment was also determined. All four outcome measures demonstrated responsiveness, with higher levels for SASNOS and MPAI-4 when only participants categorised as “most likely to change” at first assessment were analysed. Predictive validity of the RCS-E and SRS in estimating the extent of change was variable. SRS was only predictive of improvement on the MPAI-4 whilst RCS-E was not predictive at all. Recommendations are made regarding ideal characteristics of NbR outcome measures, along with the need to develop measures of rehabilitation complexity specifically conceptualised for these programmes.
Keywords: Neurobehavioural Rehabilitation, Acquired Brain Injury, Outcome Measurement, Assessment Tools, Rehabilitation Complexity, Responsiveness
College: Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
Issue: 7
Start Page: 1318
End Page: 1347

Similar Items