Research Letter: Interview Versus Self-Administration of Retrospective Brain Injury Identification.
John D Corrigan, Kathryn A Hyzak, Jennifer Bogner
PMID 40679810WHAT IT FOUND
Self-administered online screening for past brain injury matched telephone interview results for most people.
Clinicians can use the online form to save staff time, but should be aware it may miss some other acquired brain injuries.
Key findings
01Concordance between telephone interview and online self-administration was substantial or better for all indices except the number of times loss of consciousness occurred due to being choked or strangled, which showed moderate concordance.
02Test/retest reliability for the self-administered version was at least substantial for almost all indices, though severity and occurrence of repeated head impacts were only moderate.
03Self-administration under-identified almost 10% of other acquired brain injuries compared to interview, potentially due to the reading level required for medical terminology.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample had a high prevalence of TBI (62% in the main group), which is almost twice the rate found in national surveys. This may be due to self-selection by panel members who agreed to health surveys. The study could not determine if the results apply equally to different genders, races/ethnicities, or education levels because the cell sizes for these subgroups were too small. Low frequency of certain events (like repeated head impacts in the reliability group) meant test-retest reliability could not be calculated for all indices. Participants were adults from a general population panel, not necessarily patients currently receiving therapy, so the findings may not generalize to clinical populations with more complex histories.
Declared interests
No specific conflicts of interest or funding declarations were provided in the text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the self-administered form is perfectly equivalent to the interview for all types of brain injury. It under-identified almost 10% of other acquired brain injuries, likely due to medical terminology barriers, and showed only moderate reliability for repeated head impacts.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →