No Cover Image

Journal article 1042 views 297 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
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2019-02-20T12:11:34Z
last_indexed 2021-06-15T03:09:39Z
id cronfa48913
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2021-06-14T11:19:00.7116590</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>48913</id><entry>2019-02-20</entry><title>Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>b104bd4518ffc637bf9091ef85ff3a9b</sid><firstname>Aimee</firstname><surname>Pink</surname><name>Aimee Pink</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>21dc2ebf100cf324becc27e8db6fde8d</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-0791-744X</ORCID><firstname>Claire</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><name>Claire Williams</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2019-02-20</date><deptcode>FGMHL</deptcode><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 &#x201C;most likely to change&#x201D; 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.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Neuropsychological Rehabilitation</journal><volume>30</volume><journalNumber>7</journalNumber><paginationStart>1318</paginationStart><paginationEnd>1347</paginationEnd><publisher>Informa UK Limited</publisher><placeOfPublication>Neuropsychological Rehabilitation</placeOfPublication><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>0960-2011</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1464-0694</issnElectronic><keywords>Neurobehavioural Rehabilitation, Acquired Brain Injury, Outcome Measurement, Assessment Tools, Rehabilitation Complexity, Responsiveness</keywords><publishedDay>8</publishedDay><publishedMonth>8</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2020</publishedYear><publishedDate>2020-08-08</publishedDate><doi>10.1080/09602011.2019.1582432</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Medicine, Health and Life Science - Faculty</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>FGMHL</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2021-06-14T11:19:00.7116590</lastEdited><Created>2019-02-20T04:39:21.5806963</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Psychology</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Nick</firstname><surname>Alderman</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Aimee</firstname><surname>Pink</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Claire</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><orcid>0000-0002-0791-744X</orcid><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Sara da Silva</firstname><surname>Ramos</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Michael</firstname><surname>Oddy</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Caroline</firstname><surname>Knight</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>Keith G</firstname><surname>Jenkins</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>Michael P</firstname><surname>Barnes</surname><order>8</order></author><author><firstname>Chlo&#xEB;</firstname><surname>Hayward</surname><order>9</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0048913-11032019094759.pdf</filename><originalFilename>48913.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2019-03-11T09:47:59.4570000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>354092</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Accepted Manuscript</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2020-03-07T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2021-06-14T11:19:00.7116590 v2 48913 2019-02-20 Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC b104bd4518ffc637bf9091ef85ff3a9b Aimee Pink Aimee Pink true false 21dc2ebf100cf324becc27e8db6fde8d 0000-0002-0791-744X Claire Williams Claire Williams true false 2019-02-20 FGMHL 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. Journal Article Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 30 7 1318 1347 Informa UK Limited Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 0960-2011 1464-0694 Neurobehavioural Rehabilitation, Acquired Brain Injury, Outcome Measurement, Assessment Tools, Rehabilitation Complexity, Responsiveness 8 8 2020 2020-08-08 10.1080/09602011.2019.1582432 COLLEGE NANME Medicine, Health and Life Science - Faculty COLLEGE CODE FGMHL Swansea University 2021-06-14T11:19:00.7116590 2019-02-20T04:39:21.5806963 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences School of Psychology Nick Alderman 1 Aimee Pink 2 Claire Williams 0000-0002-0791-744X 3 Sara da Silva Ramos 4 Michael Oddy 5 Caroline Knight 6 Keith G Jenkins 7 Michael P Barnes 8 Chloë Hayward 9 0048913-11032019094759.pdf 48913.pdf 2019-03-11T09:47:59.4570000 Output 354092 application/pdf Accepted Manuscript true 2020-03-07T00:00:00.0000000 true eng
title Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC
spellingShingle Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC
Aimee Pink
Claire Williams
title_short Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC
title_full Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC
title_fullStr Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC
title_sort Optimizing measurement for neurobehavioural rehabilitation services: A multisite comparison study and response to UKROC
author_id_str_mv b104bd4518ffc637bf9091ef85ff3a9b
21dc2ebf100cf324becc27e8db6fde8d
author_id_fullname_str_mv b104bd4518ffc637bf9091ef85ff3a9b_***_Aimee Pink
21dc2ebf100cf324becc27e8db6fde8d_***_Claire Williams
author Aimee Pink
Claire Williams
author2 Nick Alderman
Aimee Pink
Claire Williams
Sara da Silva Ramos
Michael Oddy
Caroline Knight
Keith G Jenkins
Michael P Barnes
Chloë Hayward
format Journal article
container_title Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
container_volume 30
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1318
publishDate 2020
institution Swansea University
issn 0960-2011
1464-0694
doi_str_mv 10.1080/09602011.2019.1582432
publisher Informa UK Limited
college_str Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str School of Psychology{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Psychology
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description 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.
published_date 2020-08-08T03:59:36Z
_version_ 1763753042013847552
score 11.016235

Similar Items