The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation · 2026
A Further Revisiting of the Common Misconceptions About Traumatic Brain Injury Scale: Is It Time for the Common Misconceptions About Traumatic Brain Injury-III?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sullivan Karen A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) misconceptions are widely held, hampering prevention and recovery. However, measuring misconceptions has proved challenging. This study examined the component structure and constructed validity of selected items from the Common Misconceptions About Traumatic Brain Injury (CM-TBI) scale, including recently proposed concussion- and social-focused items.
METHODS: One hundred sixty-one Australian adults completed 28 TBI misconception items and 2 standardized construct validation scales: the Head Injury Knowledge Scale (HIKS) and the Social Interaction Scale (SIS).
RESULTS: Eight CM-TBI items were removed using standard diagnostics and conceptual evaluation. Twenty items were examined in a principal components analysis. With Promax rotation, the interpreted solution had 2 components, explaining 36% of total variance. Total scores for component 1 (recovery) and component 2 (sequelae) were significantly and moderately correlated (rs ∼0.3 Ps < .001) with at least 1 validation measure.
CONCLUSION: Consistent with past studies of CM-TBI structure, the principal components analysis identified 2 components, labelled recovery and sequelae. This structure emerged with updated items and coverage, including concussion- and social-focused content, and yielded subscales with promising construct validity.
METHODS: One hundred sixty-one Australian adults completed 28 TBI misconception items and 2 standardized construct validation scales: the Head Injury Knowledge Scale (HIKS) and the Social Interaction Scale (SIS).
RESULTS: Eight CM-TBI items were removed using standard diagnostics and conceptual evaluation. Twenty items were examined in a principal components analysis. With Promax rotation, the interpreted solution had 2 components, explaining 36% of total variance. Total scores for component 1 (recovery) and component 2 (sequelae) were significantly and moderately correlated (rs ∼0.3 Ps < .001) with at least 1 validation measure.
CONCLUSION: Consistent with past studies of CM-TBI structure, the principal components analysis identified 2 components, labelled recovery and sequelae. This structure emerged with updated items and coverage, including concussion- and social-focused content, and yielded subscales with promising construct validity.