The psychometric validation of the Dutch version of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) after traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Belgium
Brain Injuries, Traumatic
/ complications
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy
/ complications
Cognition
Emotions
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Netherlands
Post-Concussion Syndrome
/ complications
Prospective Studies
Psychometrics
/ methods
Reproducibility of Results
Self Report
Surveys and Questionnaires
Translations
Young Adult
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
16
12
2018
accepted:
14
09
2019
entrez:
25
10
2019
pubmed:
28
10
2019
medline:
17
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most common neurological conditions. It can have wide-ranging physical, cognitive and psychosocial effects. Most people recover within weeks to months after the injury, but a substantial proportion are at risk of developing lasting post-concussion symptoms. The Rivermead Post-Concussion Syndrome Questionnaire (RPQ) is a short validated 16-items self-report instrument to evaluate post-concussive symptoms. The aim of this study was to test psychometrics characteristics of the current Dutch translation of the RPQ. To determine the psychometric characteristics of the Dutch RPQ, 472 consecutive patients six months after they presented with a traumatic brain injury in seven medical centers in the Netherlands (N = 397), and in two in Belgium (Flanders) (N = 75) took part in the study which is part of the large prospective longitudinal observational CENTER-TBI-EU-study. Psychometric properties at six months post TBI, were assessed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Sensitivity was analyzed by comparing RPQ scores and self-reported recovery status of patients with mild vs. moderate and severe TBI. The Dutch version of RPQ proved good, showing excellent psychometric characteristics: high internal consistency (Cronbach's α .93), and good construct validity, being sensitive to self-reported recovery status at six months post TBI. Moreover, data showed a good fit to the three dimensional structure of separate cognitive, emotional and somatic factors (Chi2 = 119; df = 117; p = .4; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .006), reported earlier in the literature. Psychometric characteristics of the Dutch version of RPQ proved excellent to good, and can the instrument therefore be applied for research purposes and in daily clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most common neurological conditions. It can have wide-ranging physical, cognitive and psychosocial effects. Most people recover within weeks to months after the injury, but a substantial proportion are at risk of developing lasting post-concussion symptoms. The Rivermead Post-Concussion Syndrome Questionnaire (RPQ) is a short validated 16-items self-report instrument to evaluate post-concussive symptoms. The aim of this study was to test psychometrics characteristics of the current Dutch translation of the RPQ.
METHODS
To determine the psychometric characteristics of the Dutch RPQ, 472 consecutive patients six months after they presented with a traumatic brain injury in seven medical centers in the Netherlands (N = 397), and in two in Belgium (Flanders) (N = 75) took part in the study which is part of the large prospective longitudinal observational CENTER-TBI-EU-study. Psychometric properties at six months post TBI, were assessed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Sensitivity was analyzed by comparing RPQ scores and self-reported recovery status of patients with mild vs. moderate and severe TBI.
FINDINGS
The Dutch version of RPQ proved good, showing excellent psychometric characteristics: high internal consistency (Cronbach's α .93), and good construct validity, being sensitive to self-reported recovery status at six months post TBI. Moreover, data showed a good fit to the three dimensional structure of separate cognitive, emotional and somatic factors (Chi2 = 119; df = 117; p = .4; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .006), reported earlier in the literature.
DISCUSSION
Psychometric characteristics of the Dutch version of RPQ proved excellent to good, and can the instrument therefore be applied for research purposes and in daily clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31647814
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210138
pii: PONE-D-18-35877
pmc: PMC6812802
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0210138Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Clin Rehabil. 2005 Dec;19(8):878-87
pubmed: 16323387
Gerontologist. 2018 Sep 14;58(5):e302-e310
pubmed: 30219906
Neurosurgery. 2015 Jan;76(1):67-80
pubmed: 25525693
J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2009 Spring;21(2):181-8
pubmed: 19622689
J Neurol. 2006 Dec;253(12):1603-14
pubmed: 17063314
J Rehabil Med. 2011 Nov;43(11):997-1002
pubmed: 22031345
PLoS One. 2017 May 24;12(5):e0176668
pubmed: 28542226
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;83(2):217-23
pubmed: 22028384
J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Sep;5(3):353-6
pubmed: 24404294
J Neurotrauma. 2015 Jun 1;32(11):853-62
pubmed: 25320845
Lancet. 1974 Jul 13;2(7872):81-4
pubmed: 4136544
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-32
pubmed: 8263569
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Nov;91(11):1637-40
pubmed: 21044706
J Neurotrauma. 2017 Mar 27;:null
pubmed: 28343409
J Neurol. 1995 Sep;242(9):587-92
pubmed: 8551320
Eur J Gen Pract. 2008;14 Suppl 1:53-62
pubmed: 18949646
Eval Health Prof. 2018 Dec;41(4):456-473
pubmed: 30376738
PLoS Med. 2017 Jul 11;14(7):e1002331
pubmed: 28700588
J Neurotrauma. 2010 Jul;27(7):1157-65
pubmed: 20210602
J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017 Summer;29(3):206-224
pubmed: 28193126
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 Jul;61(1):75-81
pubmed: 8676166
Ann Neurol. 2013 Feb;73(2):224-35
pubmed: 23224915
J Neurotrauma. 1998 Aug;15(8):573-85
pubmed: 9726257
Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:27-58
pubmed: 11148298
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Jul;16(7):532-540
pubmed: 28653646
Br J Clin Psychol. 1999 Mar;38(1):15-25
pubmed: 10212734
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017 Jul;32(7):734-741
pubmed: 27272129
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008 Aug;79(8):936-42
pubmed: 17951281
Psychol Bull. 1992 Sep;112(2):351-62
pubmed: 1454899
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Aug 7;17(1):536
pubmed: 28784137
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Aug;13(8):844-54
pubmed: 25030516
Neurosurgery. 2014 Oct;75 Suppl 4:S50-63
pubmed: 25232884
Brain Inj. 2003 Mar;17(3):199-206
pubmed: 12623496