OBJECTIVES: To provide further evidence of reliability and internal and external construct validity of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), which measures severity of postconcussion symptoms following head injury. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of consecutive patients presenting with a head injury in two urban teaching hospitals and a community trust. PATIENTS: Three hundred and sixty-nine patients returned a questionnaire from 1689 consecutive adult patients (18 years and above) referred to radiology for a skull X-ray following a head injury, and those who were currently under the care of a community-based multidisciplinary head injury team. METHOD: Internal construct validity tested by fit to the Rasch Measurement model; external construct validity tested by correlations with Rivermead Head Injury Follow-up Questionnaire (RHFUQ); test-retest reliability tested by correlations at two-week intervals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire and Rivermead Head Injury Follow-up Questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS: RPQ scores ranged from 0 to 64 (17.3% floor, 0.3% ceiling). Overall fit to the Rasch model was poor (item fit mean -0.416, SD = 1.989, chi-squared= 172.486, p<0.01) suggesting a lack of unidimensionality. The items headaches, dizziness and forgetful displayed misfitting residuals and the first two items also displayed significant item trait fit statistics (p < 0.0006). After removing the items headaches, dizziness and subsequently nausea the RPQ demonstrated good fit at overall and individual item levels, both for the remaining 13 items (RPQ-13) and the three items (RPQ-3) which now formed a subsidiary scale. All items functioned consistently across age and gender. The RPQ-13 and RPQ-3 scales showed test-retest reliability coefficients of 0.89 and 0.72 (both p-values < 0.01) and positive correlations with RHFUQ scores (0.83 for RPQ-13, 0.62 for RPQ-3, both p-values < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: As currently used, the RPQ does not meet modern psychometric standards. Its 16 items do not tap into the same underlying construct and should not be summated in a single score. When the RPQ is split into two separate scales, the RPQ-13 and the RPQ-3, each set of items forms a unidimensional construct for people with head injury at three months post injury. These scales show good test-retest reliability and adequate external construct validity.
OBJECTIVES: To provide further evidence of reliability and internal and external construct validity of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), which measures severity of postconcussion symptoms following head injury. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of consecutive patients presenting with a head injury in two urban teaching hospitals and a community trust. PATIENTS: Three hundred and sixty-nine patients returned a questionnaire from 1689 consecutive adult patients (18 years and above) referred to radiology for a skull X-ray following a head injury, and those who were currently under the care of a community-based multidisciplinary head injury team. METHOD: Internal construct validity tested by fit to the Rasch Measurement model; external construct validity tested by correlations with Rivermead Head Injury Follow-up Questionnaire (RHFUQ); test-retest reliability tested by correlations at two-week intervals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire and Rivermead Head Injury Follow-up Questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS: RPQ scores ranged from 0 to 64 (17.3% floor, 0.3% ceiling). Overall fit to the Rasch model was poor (item fit mean -0.416, SD = 1.989, chi-squared= 172.486, p<0.01) suggesting a lack of unidimensionality. The items headaches, dizziness and forgetful displayed misfitting residuals and the first two items also displayed significant item trait fit statistics (p < 0.0006). After removing the items headaches, dizziness and subsequently nausea the RPQ demonstrated good fit at overall and individual item levels, both for the remaining 13 items (RPQ-13) and the three items (RPQ-3) which now formed a subsidiary scale. All items functioned consistently across age and gender. The RPQ-13 and RPQ-3 scales showed test-retest reliability coefficients of 0.89 and 0.72 (both p-values < 0.01) and positive correlations with RHFUQ scores (0.83 for RPQ-13, 0.62 for RPQ-3, both p-values < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: As currently used, the RPQ does not meet modern psychometric standards. Its 16 items do not tap into the same underlying construct and should not be summated in a single score. When the RPQ is split into two separate scales, the RPQ-13 and the RPQ-3, each set of items forms a unidimensional construct for people with head injury at three months post injury. These scales show good test-retest reliability and adequate external construct validity.
Authors: Stephen R McCauley; Elisabeth A Wilde; Amanda Barnes; Gerri Hanten; Jill V Hunter; Harvey S Levin; Douglas H Smith Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Jonathan J Ratcliff; Opeolu Adeoye; Christopher J Lindsell; Kimberly W Hart; Arthur Pancioli; Jason T McMullan; John K Yue; Daniel K Nishijima; Wayne A Gordon; Alex B Valadka; David O Okonkwo; Hester F Lingsma; Andrew I R Maas; Geoffrey T Manley Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Ryan A Opel; Alison Christy; Erin L Boespflug; Kristianna B Weymann; Brendan Case; Jeffery M Pollock; Lisa C Silbert; Miranda M Lim Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Amanda R Rabinowitz; Xiaoqi Li; Stephen R McCauley; Elisabeth A Wilde; Amanda Barnes; Gerri Hanten; Donna Mendez; James J McCarthy; Harvey S Levin Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Valery L Feigin; Bo Norrving; Mary G George; Jennifer L Foltz; Gregory A Roth; George A Mensah Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 42.937