Preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of the BIRT Independent Living Scale

References

• Willer B, Rosenthal M, Kreutzer JS, et al. Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1993;8:75–87.
   Google Scholar
• Corrigan JD, Bogner JA, Mysiw WJ, et al. Life satisfaction after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2001;16:543–555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steadman-Pare D, Colantonio A, Ratcliff G, et al. Factors associated with perceived quality of life many years after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2001;16:330–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huebner RA, Johnson K, Bennett CM, et al. Community participation and quality of life outcomes after adult traumatic brain injury. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57:177–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteneck GG, Charlifue SW, Gerhart KA, et al. Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73:519–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McColl MA, Davies D, Carlson P, et al. The community integration measure: development and preliminary validation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:429–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal ME, Schall RR. Assessing handicap of stroke survivors. A validation study of the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;74:276–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tozato F, Tobimatsu Y, Wang C-W, et al. Reliability and validity of the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique for Japanese individuals with spinal cord injury. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2005;205:357–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sander AM, Fuchs KL, High WM, et al. The Community Integration Questionnaire revisited: an assessment of factor structure and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:1303–1308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willer B, Ottenbacher KJ, Coad ML. The community integration questionnaire. A comparative examination. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;73:103–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reistetter TA, Spencer JC, Trujillo L, et al. Examining the Community Integration Measure (CIM): a replication study with life satisfaction. NeuroRehabilitation. 2005;20:139–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffen JA, Hanks RA, Meachen S-J. The reliability and validity of the Community Integration Measure in persons with traumatic brain injury. Rehabil Psychol. 2010;55:292–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raad J, Rajyaguru P, Ducato T, et al. The Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique. Rehabilitaiton Measures Database. 2012 [cited 2016 Dec 20]. Available at: http://www.rehabmeasures.org/Lists/RehabMeasures/PrintView.aspx?ID = 963
   Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Abreu B, Gonzales V, et al. Comparison of the Community Integration Questionnaire, the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique, and the Disability Rating Scale in traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2002;17:497–509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate RL. A compendium of tests, scales, and questionnaires: the practitioner’s guide to measuring outcomes after acquired brain impairment. Hove (UK): Psychology Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan CP. The community integration questionnaire with new scoring guidelines: concurrent validity and need for appropriate norms. Brain Inj. 2001;15:725–731.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Baalen B, Odding E, van Woensel MPC, et al. Reliability and sensitivity to change of measurement instruments used in a traumatic brain injury population. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:686–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slade M, Thornicroft G, Glover G. The feasibility of routine outcome measures in mental health. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1999;34:243–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyson S, Greenhalgh J, Long AF, et al. The use of measurement tools in clinical practice: an observational study of neurorehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24:74–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garland AF, Kruse M, Aarons GA. Clinicians and outcome measurement: what's the use? J Behav Health Serv Res. 2003;30:393–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickman L, Rosof-Williams J, Salzer MS, et al. What information do clinicians value for monitoring adolescent client progress and outcomes? Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2000;31:70–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatfield DR, Ogles BM. Why some clinicians use outcome measures and others do not. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2007;34:283–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner-Stokes L, Williams H, Sephton K, et al. Engaging the hearts and minds of clinicians in outcome measurement – the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative approach. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:1871–1879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eames P. Measuring outcome: development of an approach. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 1999;9:363–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eames P, Wood RL. Rehabilitation after severe brain injury: a follow-up study of a behaviour modification approach. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1985;48:613–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kersel DA, Marsh NV, Havill JH, et al. Psychosocial functioning during the year following severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2001;15:683–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate RL, Godbee K, Sigmundsdottir L. A systematic review of assessment tools for adults used in traumatic brain injury research and their relationship to the ICF. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;32:729–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boake C. Supervision rating scale: a measure of functional outcome from brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:765–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate RL. Assessing support needs for people with traumatic brain injury: the Care and Needs Scale (CANS). Brain Inj. 2004;18:445–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malec JF. Comparability of Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory ratings by staff, significant others and people with acquired brain injury. Brain Inj. 2004; 18:563–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malec JF, Lezak MMD. Manual for the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4) for adults, children and adolescents. The Center for Outcome Measurement in Brain Injury. 2003; [cited 2012 Jul 18] (April 2003). Available at: http://www.tbims.org/combi/mpai/manual.pdf
   Google Scholar
• NHS Health Research Authority. Determine whether your study is research [cited 2016 Jan 4]. Available at: http://www.hra.nhs.uk/research-community/before-you-apply/determine-whether-your-study-is-research/
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krippendorf K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Svensson E, Holm S. Separation of systematic and random differences in ordinal rating scales. Stat Med. 1994;13:2437–2453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ownsworth T, McKenna K. Investigation of factors related to employment outcome following traumatic brain injury: a critical review and conceptual model. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:765–783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oddy M, Ramos S. The clinical and cost-benefits of investing in neurobehavioural rehabilitation: a multi-centre study. Brain Inj. 2013;9052:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Wood RL, McCrea JD, Wood LM, et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of post-acute neurobehavioural rehabilitation. Brain Inj. 1999;13:69–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worthington AD, Matthews S, Melia Y, et al. Cost-benefits associated with social outcome from neurobehavioural rehabilitation. Brain Injury. 2006;20:947–957.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar