ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Traumatic Brain Injury (QOLIBRI-OS): (Steinbeuchel et al, 2012; international data set = 9 countries, 6 languages; n = 792; age = 17-30 years: 34%, 31-44 years: 31%, 45-68 years: 35%; gender = 72% male; years since injury = <1 year: 12%, 1-<2 years: 13%, 2-<4 years: 26%, 4-18 years: 50%)

• Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a model with one underlying factor had a reasonable fit (comparative fit index =0.98; root mean square error of approximation = 0.07; X^2 = 39.62, df = 9, p(X^2) < 0.001), although, not unexpectedly with a large sample size, the p value of X^2 reached significance

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Von Steinbuchel et al, 2005; German data set, n = 86; no information on age and gender)

• Adequate to excellent test-retest reliability (above 0.73 for all scales) 

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Von Steinbuchel et al, 2010; International Data Set = 6 languages; n = 343-381; age = 17-30 years: 34%, 31-44 years: 31%, 45-68 years: 35%; gender: 72% male; years since injury: <1 year: 12%, 1-<2 years: 13%, 2-<4 years: 26%, 4-18 years: 50%) 

• All participants
  • Excellent test-retest reliability, Cognition (ICC = 0.81, n = 380)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability, Self (ICC = 0.84, n = 381)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability, Daily life and autonomy (ICC = 0.83, n = 379)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability, Social relationships (ICC = 0.79, n = 381)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability, Emotions (ICC = 0.78, n = 376)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability, Physical problems (ICC = 0.84, n = 343)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability, QOLIBRI total (ICC = 0.91, n = 380)

Traumatic Brain Injury (QOLIBRI-OS): (Von Steinbeuchel et al, 2012; international data set = 9 countries, 6 languages; n = 375; age = 17-30 years: 32%, 31-44 years: 29%, 45-68 years: 39%; gender = 72% male; years since injury = <1 year: 10%, 1-<2 years: 12%, 2-<4 years: 30%, 4-18 years: 48%; test interval: 2 weeks; MMSE, Mini Mental State Examination; TICS, Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status)

• Excellent test retest-reliability, total sample (ICC = 0.81) 
• Excellent test retest-reliability, Dutch version (ICC = 0.81) 
• Adequate test retest-reliability, English version (ICC = 0.69) 
• Excellent test retest-reliability, Finnish version (ICC = 0.86) 
• Excellent test retest-reliability, French version (ICC = 0.75) 
• Excellent test retest-reliability, German version (ICC = 0.86) 
• Excellent test retest-reliability, low MME/TICS (ICC = 0.81) 
• Excellent test retest-reliability, high MMSE/TICS (ICC = 0.82)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Von Steinbuchel et al, 2005; German data set, n = 86; no information on age and gender)

• Adequate to Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha for Satisfaction subscales range from 0.75 to 0.95*
• ¡®¡®Bothered by¡¯¡¯ items not analyzed

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Von Steinbuchel et al, 2010; International Data Set = 6 languages; n = 795; age = 17-30 years: 34%, 31-44 years: 31%, 45-68 years: 35%; gender: 72% male; years since injury: <1 year: 12%, 1-<2 years: 13%, 2-<4 years: 26%, 4-18 years: 50%) 

Traumatic Brain Injury (QOLIBRI-OS): (Von Steinbeuchel et al, 2012; international data set = 9 countries, 6 languages; n = 792; age = 17-30 years: 34%, 31-44 years: 31%, 45-68 years: 35%; gender = 72% male; years since injury = <1 year: 12%, 1-<2 years: 13%, 2-<4 years: 26%, 4-18 years: 50%)

• Excellent internal consistency, total sample (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.86)
• Adequate internal consistency, Dutch version (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.79)
• Excellent internal consistency, English version (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.91*)
• Excellent internal consistency, Finnish version (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.88)
• Excellent internal consistency, French version (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.82)
• Excellent internal consistency, German version (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.89)
• Excellent internal consistency, Italian version (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.81)
• Excellent internal consistency, low MMSE/TICS (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.88)
• Excellent internal consistency, high MMSE/TICS (Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.87)

Traumatic Brain Injury (QOLIBRI-OS): (Heiberg et al., 2020; n = 304)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.93*

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Von Steinbuchel et al, 2005; German data set, n = 86; no information on age and gender)

• Convergent correlations with the anxiety scale of the Hospital Anxiety Depression scale (HAD): coefficients between -0.37 and -0.68, and for HAD depression scale coefficients between -0.60 and -0.74 

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Von Steinbuchel et al, 2010; International Data Set = 6 languages; n = 795; age = 17-30 years: 34%, 31-44 years: 31%, 45-68 years: 35%; gender: 72% male; years since injury: <1 year: 12%, 1-<2 years: 13%, 2-<4 years: 26%, 4-18 years: 50%)

• Rasch analysis of individual QOLIBRI scales showed that infit was in the required range for all items in each of the scales
• Rasch analysis thus confirms that items have a satisfactory fit with their home scales
• Weaker items are ¡®¡®self-perception,¡¯¡¯ with an infit value of 0.7 suggesting a certain amount of redundancy, and ¡®¡®run personal finances,¡¯¡¯ with an outfit value of 1.33, which indicates misfitting outliers in the data
• Item difficulty measures ranged from -0.47 to 0.61 logits. Principal Components Analysis of the residuals showed that the Rasch model explained 38.2% of the variance, indicating that a unidimensional model explains only a moderate amount of the variance
• The infit values indicated that the majority of QOLIBRI items fit an overall Rasch dimension, however, five items with infit values of 1.3 or more: ¡®¡®partner¡¯¡¯ (infit = 1.41), ¡®¡®sex life¡¯¡¯ (infit = 1.30), ¡®¡®other injuries¡¯¡¯ (infit = 1.30), ¡®¡®pain¡¯¡¯ (infit = 1.31), and ¡®¡®seeing/hearing¡¯¡¯ (infit = 1.36) 
• The results of this analysis give moderate support to a unidimensional model, but also indicate that some of the items in the ¡®¡®Social relationships¡¯¡¯ and ¡®¡®Physical problems¡¯¡¯ scales have a poor fit with a unidimensional model 
• Loadings on the first component of a single-factor solution indicate that items in the first three scales generally have a good fit (loadings>0.6) with a unidimensional HRQoL model descriptive system 
• Items in the last three scales have a weaker fit with this single-factor descriptive system, and two items (¡®¡®partner¡¯¡¯ and ¡®¡®see/hear¡¯¡¯) have a poor fit (loading<.45) 
• The single-factor PCA is consistent with the Rasch analysis conducted on all items combined, and indicates that there is a unidimensional component to the QOLIBRI, primarily based on the items in the first three scales, which are concerned with cognitive function, self-perception, and independent living 
• The items from the last three scales, with the two exceptions described above, have moderate fit with this descriptive system model 

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Von Steinbeuchel et al, 2010; n = 795; mean age = 39 (13.3); mean period follow up = 5 years (3.9))

• The SF-36 PCS has its highest correlation with the QOLIBRI Physical Problems scale (.63), Comorbid Health Conditions (.60)
• The HADS anxiety scale correlates most strongly with the QOLIBRI Emotions scale (-.64)
• HADS depression with the Self scale (-.62)
• The SF-36 MCS correlates most highly with the Emotions (.62), and Self (.56) scales
• Help needed with activities correlates most highly with the Daily Life (-.53) and Physical Problems (-.47) scales. 
• Strongest correlations with the GOSE are with Daily Life (.43) and Physical Problems (.40)
• Overall relationship between the GOSE and the QOLIBRI was only moderate, indicating that people could have poor outcome on the GOSE and have good HRQoL and vice versa 

Traumatic Brain Injury (QOLIBRI-OS): (Von Steinbeuchel et al, 2012; international data set = 9 countries, 6 languages; n = 792; age = 17-30 years: 34%, 31-44 years: 31%, 45-68 years: 35%; gender = 72% male; years since injury = <1 year: 12%, 1-<2 years: 13%, 2-<4 years: 26%, 4-18 years: 50%)

• Rasch analysis: person separation index =2.46 and reliability=0.86, indicating a good ability to sort respondents into different levels of HRQoL
• All items correctly ordered category and threshold measures; values of infit and outfit are well within criteria for fit to the Rasch model 
• Item location measures ranged from -0.56 logits for the ¡®Daily life item¡¯ (ie, the easiest to endorse positively) to 0.29 logits for Cognition (ie, the hardest to endorse positively). 
• The relatively limited range of item locations indicates that distributions of responses to different items were similar
• QOLIBRI-OS strongly correlated with QOLIBRI total (Spearman¡¯s correlation = 0.87)
• QOLIBRI-OS strongly correlated to all QOLIBRI scales:
  • Self scale (Spearman¡¯s correlation = 0.81, p < 0.001) 
  • Daily Life and Autonomy scale (Spearman's = 0.75, p < 0.001) 
  • Cognition scale (Spearman¡¯s = 0.74, p < 0.001)
  • Social Relationships scale (Spearman¡¯s = 0.63, p < 0.001)
  • Physical Problems (Spearman¡¯s = 0.60, p < 0.001)
  • Emotions scale (Spearman¡¯s = 0.56 p < 0.001)
• All QOLIBRI-OS items showed strong positive correlations with the QOLIBRI total score (Spearman¡¯s = 0.64 -0.70), suggesting that the QOLIBRIOS items contributed equally to assessment of the HRQoL construct
• German language sample, n = 153. Moderate to strong relationships were found among the QOLIBRI-OS and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale, Short-Form-36, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (Spearman¡¯s = 0.54 to -0.76)

*p<0.001. Steiger¡¯s t test (two-tailed) for a difference with the QOLIBRI-OS correlation: **p<0.05, *** p<0.01. GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; GOSE, Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; MCS, Mental Component Score; PCS, Physical Component Score; QOLIBRI-OS, Quality of Life after Brain Injury Overall Scale; QoL-VAS, Quality of Life Visual Analogue Scale; SF-36, Short-Form-36; SWLS, Satisfaction With Life Scale.

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Von Steinbuchel et al, 2005; German data set, n = 86; no information on age and gender)

• High subscale intercorrelations (r between .54 and .79 for all subscales)

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Bullinger et al, 2002, Von Steinbuchel et al, 2005 and 2010)

• In 1999, the conceptual model for the QOLIBRI was developed on the basis of a TBI literature review and consensus meetings of an international consortium composed of 15 task force members (including neurosurgeons, neurologists, neuropsychologists, psychologists, and other health care professionals working in neuro- rehabilitation) 
• In 2002, constructed an initial item bank of 148 items, and then reduced the item set through two successive multicenter validation studies
• In 2004-2006, the draft instrument was subsequently administered to 1528 persons after TBI across the centers collaborating in the QOLIBRI Task Force; Analysis and reduction of the initial 56 items based on psychometric criteria to a 49-item questionnaire consisting of seven scales
• In 2006-2008, second international validation study with 921 participants with TBI