Factorial validity and comparability of the six translations of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire translations: results from the CENTER-TBI study.
Factorial validity and comparability of the six translations of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire translations - results from the CENTER-TBI study..pdf
[en] BACKGROUND: Comparison of patient-reported outcomes in multilingual studies requires evidence of the equivalence of translated versions of the questionnaires. The present study examines the factorial validity and comparability of six language versions of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) administered to individuals following traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: Six competing RPQ models were estimated using data from Dutch (n = 597), English (n = 223), Finnish (n = 213), Italian (n = 268), Norwegian (n = 263), and Spanish (n = 254) language samples recruited six months after injury. To determine whether the same latent construct was measured by the best-fitting model across languages and TBI severity groups (mild/moderate vs. severe), measurement invariance (MI) was tested using a confirmatory factor analysis framework. RESULTS: The results did not indicate a violation of the MI assumption. The six RPQ translations were largely comparable across languages and were able to capture the same construct across TBI severity groups. The three-factor solution comprising emotional, cognitive, and somatic factors provided the best fit with the following indices for the total sample: χ(2) (101) = 647.04, [Formula: see text]= 6.41, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.055, CI(90%)[0.051, 0.059], SRMR = 0.051. CONCLUSION: The RPQ can be used in international research and clinical settings, allowing direct comparisons of scores across languages analyzed within the full spectrum of TBI severity. To strengthen the aggregated applicability across languages, further analyses of the utility of the response scale and comparisons between different translations of the RPQ at the item level are recommended.
Disciplines :
Human health sciences: Multidisciplinary, general & others
Author, co-author :
Zeldovich, Marina ; Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. marina.zeldovich@med.uni-goettingen.de.
Bockhop, Fabian; Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Covic, Amra; Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Mueller, Isabelle; Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. ; Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Polinder, Suzanne; Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mikolic, Ana; Department of Psychology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. ; Rehabilitation Research Program, Centre for Aging SMART at Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
van der Vlegel, Marjolein; Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
von Steinbuechel, Nicole; Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Factorial validity and comparability of the six translations of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire translations: results from the CENTER-TBI study.
Menon DK, Schwab K, Wright DW, Maas AI (2010) Position statement: definition of traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91:1637–1640. 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.05.017 DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.05.017
Maas AIR, Menon DK, Adelson PD et al (2017) Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research. Lancet Neurol 16:987–1048. 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30371-X DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30371-X
Powell JM, Wise EK, Brockway JA et al (2017) Characteristics and concerns of caregivers of adults with traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 32:E33–E41. 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000219 DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000219
Hiploylee C, Dufort PA, Davis HS et al (2017) Longitudinal study of postconcussion syndrome: not everyone recovers. J Neurotrauma 34:1511–1523. 10.1089/neu.2016.4677 DOI: 10.1089/neu.2016.4677
World Health Organization (2004) ICD-10: international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision, 2nd ed.
King NS, Crawford S, Wenden FJ et al (1995) The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire: a measure of symptoms commonly experienced after head injury and its reliability. J Neurol 242:587–592 DOI: 10.1007/BF00868811
Sigurdardottir S, Andelic N, Roe C et al (2009) Post-concussion symptoms after traumatic brain injury at 3 and 12 months post-injury: a prospective study. Brain Inj 23:489–497. 10.1080/02699050902926309 DOI: 10.1080/02699050902926309
Zeldovich M, Wu Y-J, Gorbunova A et al (2020) Influence of sociodemographic, premorbid, and injury-related factors on post-concussion symptoms after traumatic brain injury. JCM 9:1931. 10.3390/jcm9061931 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9061931
Maas AIR, Menon DK, Steyerberg EW et al (2015) Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI): a prospective longitudinal observational study. Neurosurgery 76:67–80. 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000575 DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000575
von Steinbuechel N, Rauen K, Krenz U et al (2021) Translation and linguistic validation of outcome instruments for traumatic brain injury research and clinical practice: a step-by-step approach within the observational CENTER-TBI study. J Clin Med 10:2863 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10132863
Acquadro C (2012) Linguistic validation manual for health outcome assessments. MAPI Research Institute, Lyon
Meredith W, Teresi JA (2006) An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Med Care 44:S69–S77. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89 DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89
von Steinbuechel N, Rauen K, Bockhop F et al (2021) Psychometric characteristics of the patient-reported outcome measures applied in the CENTER-TBI Study. JCM 10:2396. 10.3390/jcm10112396 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10112396
Steyerberg EW, Wiegers E, Sewalt C et al (2019) Case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in CENTER-TBI: a European prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, cohort study. Lancet Neurol 18:923–934. 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30232-7 DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30232-7
Teasdale G, Jennett B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 2:81–84. 10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0
Williams DH, Levin HS, Eisenberg HM (1990) Mild head injury classification. Neurosurgery. 10.1097/00006123-199009000-00014 DOI: 10.1097/00006123-199009000-00014
Wilson JTL, Pettigrew LEL, Teasdale G (1998) Structured interviews for the glasgow outcome scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma 15:573–585. 10.1089/neu.1998.15.573 DOI: 10.1089/neu.1998.15.573
Gennarelli TA, Wodzin E, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (2008) Abbreviated injury scale 2005: update 2008. Association for the Advancement of Automative Medicine, Barrington
Potter S, Leigh E, Wade D, Fleminger S (2006) The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire: a confirmatory factor analysis. J Neurol 253:1603–1614. 10.1007/s00415-006-0275-z DOI: 10.1007/s00415-006-0275-z
Eyres S, Carey A, Gilworth G et al (2005) Construct validity and reliability of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire. Clin Rehabil 19:878–887. 10.1191/0269215505cr905oa DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr905oa
Smith-Seemiller L, Fow NR, Kant R, Franzen MD (2003) Presence of post-concussion syndrome symptoms in patients with chronic pain vs mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 17:199–206. 10.1080/0269905021000030823 DOI: 10.1080/0269905021000030823
Herrmann N, Rapoport MJ, Rajaram RD et al (2009) Factor analysis of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire in mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury patients. JNP 21:181–188. 10.1176/jnp.2009.21.2.181 DOI: 10.1176/jnp.2009.21.2.181
Thomas M, Skilbeck C, Cannan P, Slatyer M (2018) The structure of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire in Australian adults with traumatic brain injury. Brain Impairment 19:166–182. 10.1017/BrImp.2017.26 DOI: 10.1017/BrImp.2017.26
Lannsjö M, Borg J, Björklund G et al (2011) Internal construct validity of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire. J Rehabil Med 43:997–1002. 10.2340/16501977-0875 DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0875
Vargha A, Delaney HD (2000) A critique and improvement of the CL common language effect size statistics of McGraw and Wong. J Educ Behav Stat 25:101–132. 10.3102/10769986025002101 DOI: 10.3102/10769986025002101
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, London
Gerber DJ, Schraa JC (1995) Mild traumatic brain injury: searching for the syndrome. J Head Trauma Rehabil 10:28–40. 10.1097/00001199-199508000-00004 DOI: 10.1097/00001199-199508000-00004
Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107:238–246 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bentler PM, Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 88:588–606. 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
Steiger JH (1980) Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. In: The annual meeting of the Psychometric Society. Iowa City
Cole DA (1987) Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. J Consult Clin Psychol 55:584–594. 10.1037/0022-006X.55.4.584 DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.55.4.584
Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55 DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Finch WH, French BF (2018) A simulation investigation of the performance of invariance assessment using equivalence testing procedures. Struct Equ Model 25:673–686. 10.1080/10705511.2018.1431781 DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2018.1431781
Xia Y, Yang Y (2019) RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: the story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behav Res 51:409–428. 10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2 DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
Wu H, Estabrook R (2016) Identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of different levels of invariance for ordered categorical outcomes. Psychometrika 81:1014–1045. 10.1007/s11336-016-9506-0 DOI: 10.1007/s11336-016-9506-0
Svetina D, Rutkowski L, Rutkowski D (2020) Multiple-group invariance with categorical outcomes using updated guidelines: an illustration using mplus and the Lavaan/semtools packages. Struct Equ Model 27:111–130. 10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776 DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776
Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 9:233–255 DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Chen FF (2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 14:464–504. 10.1080/10705510701301834 DOI: 10.1080/10705510701301834
R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing
Rich B (2021) Table1: tables of descriptive statistics in HTML
Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Soft 48:5. 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 DOI: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Lishinski A (2021) lavaanPlot: Path Diagrams for “Lavaan” Models via “DiagrammeR”. R package version 0.6.2.
Van Dusen B, Nissen JM (2020) Criteria for collapsing rating scale responses: a case study of the CLASS. In: 2019 physics education research conference proceedings. American Association of Physics Teachers, Provo, UT
Sady MD, Vaughan CG, Gioia GA (2014) Psychometric characteristics of the postconcussion symptom inventory in children and adolescents. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 29:348–363. 10.1093/arclin/acu014 DOI: 10.1093/arclin/acu014
Althubaiti A (2016) Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. JMDH. 10.2147/JMDH.S104807 DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S104807
Lalande KM, Bonanno GA (2011) Retrospective memory bias for the frequency of potentially traumatic events: a prospective study. Psychol Trauma Theory Res Pract Policy 3:165–170. 10.1037/a0020847 DOI: 10.1037/a0020847
Colvin KF, Gorgun G (2020) Collapsing scale categories: comparing the psychometric properties of resulting scales. Pract Assess Res 25:6
Zeldovich M, Bockhop F, Covic A et al (2022) Reference values for the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) from general population samples in the United Kingdom, Italy, and The Netherlands. JCM 11:4658. 10.3390/jcm11164658 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11164658
Ryan LM, Warden DL (2003) Post concussion syndrome. Int Rev Psychiatry 15:310–316. 10.1080/09540260310001606692 DOI: 10.1080/09540260310001606692
Agtarap S, Kramer MD, Campbell-Sills L et al (2021) Invariance of the Bifactor Structure of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) Symptoms on the Rivermead Postconcussion Symptoms Questionnaire across time, demographic characteristics, and clinical groups: a TRACK-TBI study. Assessment 28:1656–1670. 10.1177/1073191120913941 DOI: 10.1177/1073191120913941
Rivera D, Greving S, Arango-Lasprilla JC (2022) Comparability of (post-concussion) symptoms across time in individuals after traumatic brain injury: Results from the center-tbi study. J Clin Med 11:4090 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11144090
