A systematic review of assessment tools for adults used in traumatic brain injury research and their relationship to the ICF

作者：Tate Robyn L^*; Godbee Kali; Sigmundsdottir Linda

来源：NeuroRehabilitation, 2013, 32(4): 729-750.

DOI：10.3233/NRE-130898

• Traumatic brain injury
• cognition disorders
• ICF
• International Classification of Functioning
• Disability and Health
• neurobehavioral functioning
• measurement
• questionnaires
• tests

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Good assessment is an essential component of effective patient management. Yet the sheer volume of available assessment instruments presents a barrier for the clinician or researcher to (a) be knowledgeable about suitable measures and (b) keep up-to-date with new measures that are published. In order to create a resource of currently-used measures, we conducted a systematic review of assessment tools used in the research literature on traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHODS: We used two electronic databases (Medline and PsycINFO) to identify full-length, English-language articles published between 2000 and 2012 in which outcome in adults with TBI was assessed with behavioural tests or questionnaires.
RESULTS: The searches yielded 5,735 articles and after deletion of duplicates (n = 1,383) and articles not meeting selection criteria (n = 1,759), 2,593 articles were further examined. The articles contained 910 behavioural instruments, with a final set of 728 unique instruments. Each instrument was classified against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Half of the instruments (n = 370, 50.8%) evaluated the mental functions domain of the ICF body functions component, with a substantially smaller proportion (n = 64, 8.8%) examining specific motor-sensory and other body functions. Instruments also covered domains of activities/participation (n = 109, 15.0%), environmental factors (n = 22, 3.0%) and personal factors (n = 36, 4.9%). A substantial number of scales (n = 93, 12.8%) were multidimensional across the body function domains (n = 32), as well as the functioning and disability part of the ICF (n = 60). The remaining 5% of instruments addressed concepts not covered by the ICF, including quality of life (n = 19, 2.6%) and rehabilitation process tools (such as therapeutic alliance). The 728 instruments were listed and more than 70 of the most common, spread across 20 domains, were highlighted.
CONCLUSION: These data provide a comprehensive and up-to-date resource that gives the researcher or clinician a very large selection of assessment instruments covering the major areas of function pertinent to TBI.

• 出版日期2013