OBJECTIVE: This study investigated psychometric properties of the Motivation for Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation Questionnaire (MOT-Q), the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust Motivation Questionnaire-Self (BMQ-S), the Rehabilitation Therapy Engagement Scale-Revised (RTES-R), and the BMQ-Relative (BMQ-R) in individuals with an acquired brain injury (ABI). DESIGN: Thirty-nine patients with an ABI completed the MOT-Q, BMQ-S, measures of apathy (Apathy Evaluation Scale-Self), insight (Patient Competency Rating Scale-Self), depression, and anxiety (HADS). Twenty clinicians provided 39 ratings using the RTES-R, BMQ-R, measures of patient apathy (Apathy Evaluation Scale-Clinician) and insight (Patient Competency Rating Scale-Clinician). Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, and convergent validity were estimated. RESULTS: The MOT-Q (α = .93) and BMQ-S (α = .91) had excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.80 and 0.85). The MOT-Q and BMQ-S did not correlate with each other. The MOT-Q correlated with insight (r = -0.37, p < 0.05). The BMQ-S correlated with insight (r = -0.44, p < 0.01), apathy (r = .50, p < 0.01), depression (r = .55, p < 0.01), and anxiety (r = .49, p < 0.01). The RTES-R (α = .96) and BMQ-R (α = .95) had excellent internal consistency and good interrater reliability (ICC = 0.67 and 0.68). The RTES-R and BMQ-R correlated with each other (r = -0.88, p < 0.01), with apathy (r = -0.82 and r = .88, p < 0.01), and insight (r = -0.61 and r = .63, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The MOT-Q, RTES-R, BMQ-S, and BMQ-R have good reliability and validity. Using the MOT-Q and BMQ-S together may provide additional insight. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated psychometric properties of the Motivation for Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation Questionnaire (MOT-Q), the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust Motivation Questionnaire-Self (BMQ-S), the Rehabilitation Therapy Engagement Scale-Revised (RTES-R), and the BMQ-Relative (BMQ-R) in individuals with an acquired brain injury (ABI). DESIGN: Thirty-nine patients with an ABI completed the MOT-Q, BMQ-S, measures of apathy (Apathy Evaluation Scale-Self), insight (Patient Competency Rating Scale-Self), depression, and anxiety (HADS). Twenty clinicians provided 39 ratings using the RTES-R, BMQ-R, measures of patient apathy (Apathy Evaluation Scale-Clinician) and insight (Patient Competency Rating Scale-Clinician). Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, and convergent validity were estimated. RESULTS: The MOT-Q (α = .93) and BMQ-S (α = .91) had excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.80 and 0.85). The MOT-Q and BMQ-S did not correlate with each other. The MOT-Q correlated with insight (r = -0.37, p < 0.05). The BMQ-S correlated with insight (r = -0.44, p < 0.01), apathy (r = .50, p < 0.01), depression (r = .55, p < 0.01), and anxiety (r = .49, p < 0.01). The RTES-R (α = .96) and BMQ-R (α = .95) had excellent internal consistency and good interrater reliability (ICC = 0.67 and 0.68). The RTES-R and BMQ-R correlated with each other (r = -0.88, p < 0.01), with apathy (r = -0.82 and r = .88, p < 0.01), and insight (r = -0.61 and r = .63, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The MOT-Q, RTES-R, BMQ-S, and BMQ-R have good reliability and validity. Using the MOT-Q and BMQ-S together may provide additional insight. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Andrea Kusec; Fionnuala C Murphy; Polly V Peers; Cara Lawrence; Emma Cameron; Claire Morton; Andrew Bateman; Peter Watson; Tom Manly Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2020-09-22