Literature DB >> 35317604

Improving the Precision of the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Using Item Response Theory: A TRACK-TBI Study.

Brooke E Magnus1, Steve Balsis2, Joseph T Giacino3, Michael A McCrea4, Nancy R Temkin5, John Whyte6, Geoffrey T Manley7, Lindsay D Nelson4.   

Abstract

The Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) is a functional outcome measure intended to place individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) into one of eight broad levels of injury-related disability. This simplicity is not always optimal, particularly when more granular assessment of individuals' injury recovery is desired. The GOSE, however, is customarily assessed using a multi-question interview that contains richer information than is reflected in the GOSE score. Using data from the multi-center Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study (N = 1544), we used item response theory (IRT) to evaluate whether rescoring the GOSE using IRT, which posits that a continuous latent variable (disability) underlies responses, can yield a more precise index of injury-related functional limitations. We fit IRT models to GOSE interview responses collected at three months post-injury. Each participant's level of functional limitation was estimated from the model (GOSE-IRT) and comparisons were made between IRT-based and standard (GOSE-Ordinal) scores. The IRT scoring resulted in 141 possible scores (vs. 7 GOSE-Ordinal scores in this sample of individuals with GOSE scores ranging between 2 and 8). Moreover, GOSE-IRT scores were significantly more strongly associated with measures of TBI-related symptoms, psychological symptoms, and quality of life. Our findings demonstrate that rescoring the GOSE interview using IRT yields more granular, meaningful measurement of injury-related functional limitations, while adding no additional respondent or examiner burden. This technique may have utility for many applications, such as clinical trials aiming to detect small treatment effects, and small-scale studies that need to maximize statistical efficiency.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended; item response theory; outcome measurement; psychometrics

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35317604      PMCID: PMC9225413          DOI: 10.1089/neu.2021.0421

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurotrauma        ISSN: 0897-7151            Impact factor:   4.869


  24 in total

1.  Functional outcome scales in traumatic brain injury: a comparison of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (Extended) and the Functional Status Examination.

Authors:  Anne M Hudak; R Ruth Caesar; Alan B Frol; Kim Krueger; Caryn R Harper; Nancy R Temkin; Sureyya S Dikmen; Mary Carlile; Christopher Madden; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.269

Review 2.  Outcome measures for clinical trials in neurotrauma.

Authors:  M Ross Bullock; Randall E Merchant; Sung C Choi; Charlotte B Gilman; Jeffrey S Kreutzer; Anthony Marmarou; Graham M Teasdale
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 4.047

Review 3.  Analyzing outcome of treatment of severe head injury: a review and update on advancing the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale.

Authors:  G M Teasdale; L E Pettigrew; J T Wilson; G Murray; B Jennett
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 5.269

4.  Reliability of postal questionnaires for the Glasgow Outcome Scale.

Authors:  J T L Wilson; P Edwards; H Fiddes; E Stewart; G M Teasdale
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.269

5.  The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire: a measure of symptoms commonly experienced after head injury and its reliability.

Authors:  N S King; S Crawford; F J Wenden; N E Moss; D T Wade
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage.

Authors:  B Jennett; M Bond
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1975-03-01       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Effects of Glasgow Outcome Scale misclassification on traumatic brain injury clinical trials.

Authors:  Juan Lu; Gordon D Murray; Ewout W Steyerberg; Isabella Butcher; Gillian S McHugh; Hester Lingsma; Nino Mushkudiani; Sung Choi; Andrew I R Maas; Anthony Marmarou
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 5.269

8.  Observer variation in the assessment of outcome in traumatic brain injury: experience from a multicenter, international randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  J T Lindsay Wilson; Frans J A Slieker; Valerie Legrand; Gordon Murray; Nino Stocchetti; Andrew I R Maas
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.654

9.  Functional Status Examination Yields Higher Measurement Precision of Functional Limitations after Traumatic Injury than the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended: A Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Lindsay D Nelson; Benjamin L Brett; Brooke E Magnus; Steve Balsis; Michael A McCrea; Geoffrey T Manley; Nancy Temkin; Sureyya Dikmen
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 5.269

10.  Central Curation of Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Data: Lessons Learned from TRACK-TBI.

Authors:  Kim Boase; Joan Machamer; Nancy R Temkin; Sureyya Dikmen; Lindsay Wilson; Lindsay D Nelson; Jason Barber; Yelena G Bodien; Joseph T Giacino; Amy J Markowitz; Michael A McCrea; Gabriela Satris; Murray B Stein; Sabrina R Taylor; Geoffrey T Manley
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 5.269

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.