Validation of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4 (MPAI-4) and reference norms in a French-Canadian population with traumatic brain injury receiving rehabilitation

References

• Azouvi P, Arnould A, Dromer E, et al. Neuropsychology of traumatic brain injury: an expert overview. Rev. Neurol. (Paris). 2017;173(7-8):461–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett S, Bennett JW. The process of evidence-based practice in occupational therapy: informing clinical decisions. Aust Occ Ther J. 2000;47(4):171–180.
   Google Scholar
• Stiers W, Carlozzi N, Cernich A, et al. Measurement of social participation outcomes in rehabilitation of veterans with traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(1):139–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cattelani R, Corsini D, Posteraro L, et al. The Italian Version of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4. A new measure of brain injury outcome. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2009;45:349–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung P, Yun SJH, Khan F. A comparison of participation outcome measures and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Sets for traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(2):108–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malec JF. The Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory. 2005. Available from: http://www.tbims.org/%0Acombi/mpai.
   Google Scholar
• Lezak MD. Relationships between personality disorders, social disturbances, and physical disability following traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1987;2:57–69.
   Google Scholar
• Malec JF, Thompson JM. Relationship of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory to functional outcome and cognitive performance measures. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1994;9:1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Malec JF, Kragness M, Evans RW, et al. Further psychometric evaluation and revision of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory in a national sample. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2003;18:479–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashley JG, Ashley MJ, Masel BE, et al. The influence of post-acute rehabilitation length of stay on traumatic brain injury outcome: a retrospective exploratory study. Brain Inj. 2018;32(5):600–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curran C, Dorstyn D, Polychronis C, et al. Functional outcomes of community-based brain injury rehabilitation clients. Brain Inj. 2015;29(1):25–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dharm-Datta S, Gough MRC, Porter PJ, et al. Successful outcomes following neurorehabilitation in military traumatic brain injury patients in the United Kingdom. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79(4):S197–S203.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hux K. Post-acute rehabilitation effects on functional outcome and discharge disposition of people with severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2019;33(10):1332–1340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott KL, Strong CAH, Gorter B, et al. Predictors of post-concussion rehabilitation outcomes at three-month follow-up. Clin Neuropsychol. 2016;30(1):66–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson D, Seaman K, Sharp K, et al. Staged residential post-acute rehabilitation for adults following acquired brain injury: a comparison of functional gains rated on the UK Functional Assessment Measure (UK FIM + FAM) and the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4). Brain Inj [Internet]. 2017;31(11):1405–1413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kean J, Malec JF, Altman IM, et al. Rasch measurement analysis of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4) in a community-based rehabilitation sample. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28(5):745–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis FD, Horn GJ, Russell R. Examination of post-hospital residential brain injury rehabilitation outcomes across the age spectrum. Int J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;5:1–6.
   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(6):563–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCauley SR, Wilde EA, Anderson VA, Pediatric TBI Outcomes Workgroup, et al. Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in pediatric traumatic brain injury research. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29(4):678–705.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilde EA, Whiteneck GG, Bogner J, et al. Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in traumatic brain injury research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(11):1650–1660.e17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayley M, Swaine B, Lamontagne M-E, et al. INESSS-ONF clinical practice guideline for the rehabilitation of adults with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Toronto, ON: Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Malec JF, Moessner AM, Kragness M, et al. Refining a measure of brain injury sequelae to predict postacute rehabilitation outcome: rating scale analysis of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2000;15(1):670–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohac DL, Malec JF, Moessner AM. Factor analysis of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory: structure and validity. Brain Inj. 1997;11(7):469–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman IM, Swick S, Parrot D, et al. Effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury for 489 program completers compared with those precipitously discharged. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(11):1697–1704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman IM, Swick S, Malec JF. Effectiveness of home- and community-based rehabilitation in a large cohort of patients disabled by cerebrovascular accident: evidence of a dose-response relationship. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(9):1837–1841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eicher V, Murphy MP, Murphy TF, et al. Progress assessed with the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory in 604 participants in 4 types of post-inpatient rehabilitation brain injury programs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(1):100–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malec JF. Impact of comprehensive day treatment on societal participation for persons with acquired brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(7):885–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malec JF, Kean J. Post-inpatient brain injury rehabilitation outcomes: report from the National OutcomeInfo Database. J Neurotrauma. 2016;33(14):1371–1379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford CEL, Malley D, Bateman A, et al. Selection and visualisation of outcome measures for complex post-acute acquired brain injury rehabilitation interventions. NeuroRehabilitation. 2016;39(1):65–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malec JF, Kean J, Altman IM, et al. Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory: comparing psychometrics in cerebrovascular accident to traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(12):2271–2275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamed R, Tariah HA, Malkawi S, et al. The Arabic version of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory 4: a validation study. Int J Rehabil Res. 2012;35(3):243–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lexell J, Malec JF, Jacobsson LJ. Mapping the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory to the International classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(1):65–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang WL, Lee HL, Fetzer SJ. Challenges and strategies of instrument translation. West J Nurs Res. 2006;28(3):310–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–3191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417–1432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gjersing L, Caplehorn JR, Clausen T. Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The Center for Outcome Measurement In Brain Injury. Available from: http://www.tbims.org/mpai/.
   Google Scholar
• McKerral M, Léveillé G, Goulet P, et al. MPAI-4 version canadienne-française. The Center for Outcome Measurement in Brain Injury. 2014; Available from: http://www.tbims.org/combi/mpai.
   Google Scholar
• McKerral M, Léveillé G, Goulet P, et al. Manuel MPAI-4 Version canadienne-française. 2014. Available from: http://www.tbims.org/combi/mpai.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):141–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th ed. California: SAGE Publications; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Pituch KA, Stevens JP. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. 6th ed. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; 2015. Chapter 9: Exploratory Factor Analysis (pp. 339-390).
   Google Scholar
• Stevens JP. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2002. Chapter 11: Confirmatory and exploratory factors analysis (pp. 386-470).
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Kline P. The handbook of psychological testing. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Malec J, Lezak M. Manual for the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4) for Adults, Children and Adolescents. The Center for Outcome Measurement in Brain Injury. 2008; Available from: http://www.tbims.org/combi/mpai.
   Google Scholar
• Chen PY, Yang CM, Morin CM. Validating the cross-cultural factor structure and invariance property of the Insomnia Severity Index: evidence based on ordinal EFA and CFA. Sleep Med. 2015;16(5):598–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskin CJ, Lambert SD, Bowe SJ, et al. Why sample selection matters in exploratory factor analysis: implications for the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Report to Congress on Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: Epidemiology and Rehabilitation. Atlanta; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Granger CV. Rasch analysis is important to understand and use for measurement. Rasch Meas Trans. 2008;21:1122–1123.
   Google Scholar
• Wampold BE. The promising advantages of Rasch. Rasch Meas Trans. 1999;13:695.
   Google Scholar
• Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. London: Guilford Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):268–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar