Skip to main content


Log in

The Italian version of the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust (BIRT) personality questionnaires: five new measures of personality change after acquired brain injury

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neurological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript


The aim of this study was to describe the translation and adaptation of the BIRT personality questionnaires for the Italian population. This included the replication of validity testing and the collection of normative data. Following translation and adaptation according to cross-cultural guidelines, the questionnaires were administered as a pre-test to a sample of 20 healthy subjects and then to 10 patients. The questionnaires were then administered to 120 healthy subjects equally distributed by sex, education, and age, to collect normative data from an Italian population. The questionnaires were easily administered to both healthy subjects and patients. Statistical analysis on normative data was conducted to find the mean value for each questionnaire. This study lays the foundations for using a new instrument to assess behavioral changes after acquired brain injury on the Italian population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Yeates GN, Gracey F, Mcgrath JC (2008) A biopsychosocial deconstruction of “personality change” following acquired brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil 18(5–6):566–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oddy M (1995) He’s no longer the same person: How families adjust to personality change after head injury. In: Chamberlain NVTA (ed) Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 167–179

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Wood RL (2001). Understanding neurobehavioural disability. In: Wood RL, McMillan TM (eds). Neurobehavioural disability and social handicap following traumatic brain injury. Psychology Press Ltd, pp 3–27

  4. Gouick J, Gentleman D (2004) The emotional and behavioural consequences of traumatic brain injury. Trauma 6(4):285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cattran CJ, Oddy M, Wood RL, Moir JF (2011) Post-injury personality in the prediction of outcome following severe acquired brain injury. Brain Inj 25(11):1035–1046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Engberg AW, Teasdale TW (2004) Psychosocial outcome following traumatic brain injury in adults: a long-term population-based follow-up. Brain Inj 18(6):533–545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fleminger S, Ponsford J (2005) Long term outcome after traumatic brain injury. BMJ 331(7530):1419

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bhalerao SU, Geurtjens C, Thomas GR, Kitamura CR, Zhou C, Marlborough M (2013) Understanding the neuropsychiatric consequences associated with significant traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 27(7–8):767–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Morton MV, Wehman P (1995) Psychosocial and emotional sequelae of individuals with traumatic brain injury: a literature review and recommendations. Brain Inj 9:81–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wood RL, Yurdakul LK (1997) Change in relationship status following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 11:491–502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoofien D, Gilboa A, Vakil E, Donovick PJ (2001) Traumatic brain injury (TBI) 10? 20 years later: a comprehensive outcome study of psychiatric symptomatology, cognitive abilities and psychosocial functioning. Brain Inj 153:189–209

    Google Scholar 

  12. Milders M, Fuchs S, Crawford JR (2003) Neuropsychological impairments and changes in emotional and social behaviour following severe traumatic brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 252:157–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Elsass L, Kinsella G (1989) Development of a scale for measuring behaviour change following closed head injury. In: Anderson V, Bailey M (eds) Proceedings of the fourteenth annual brain impairment conference. Australian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment, Melbourne, pp 124–131

    Google Scholar 

  14. Barrash J, Anderson SW, Jones RD, Tranel D (1997) The Iowa rating scales of personality change: reliability and validity. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 3(1):27–28

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wilson BA, Alderman N, Burgess PW, Emslie H, Evans JJ (1996) Behavioural assessment of dysexecutive syndrome: manual. Thames Valley Test Company, Bury St Edmunds

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grace J, Malloy PF (2001) Frontal Systems Behavior Scale. Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Lutz

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kolitz BP, Vanderploeg RD, Curtiss G (2003) Development of the key behaviors change inventory: a traumatic brain injury behavioral outcome assessment instrument. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84(2):277–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Godefroy O (2004) Syndromes frontaux et dysexécutifs (Frontal dysexecutive syndromes). Revue Neurologique 160:899–909

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Isella V, Appollonio I, Meregalli L, Melzi P, Iurlaro S, Frattola L (1998) Dati normativi per le versioni italiane delle scale di apatia e di anedonia (Normative data for the Italian versions of the apathy and anhedonia scales). Archivio di Psicologia Neurologia e Psichiatria 59(3–4):356–375

    Google Scholar 

  20. Marin RS, Biedrzycki RC, Firinciogullari S (1991) Reliability and validity of the apathy evaluation scale. Psychiatry Res 38:143–162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Margari F, Matarazzo R, Casacchia M, Roncone R, Dieci M, Safran S, the EPICA study group (2005) An useful package in Italian psychiatric wards to assess and monitor aggressive behaviours: validation of two psychometric scales, Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS), and Nurses observation scale. Int J Method Psychiatr Res 14(2):109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yudofsky SC, Silver JM, Jackson W, Endicott J, Williams D (1986) The Overt Aggression Scale for the objective rating of verbal and physical aggression. Am J Psychiatry 143:35–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gainotti G, Marra C (2007) Valutazione dei disturbi affettivo-emotivi nel paziente cerebroleso. In: Carlomagno S (ed) La valutazione del deficit neuropsicologico nell’adulto cerebroleso (The assessment of neuropsychological deficits in adults with brain injury), a cura di. Elsevier Masson, pp 227–246

  24. Stroop JR (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 18(6):643–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bechara A, Damasio H, Damasio AR, Lee GP (1999) Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. J Neurosci 19(13):5473–5481

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H (2000) Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain 123(11):2189–2202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hyde CJ (2006) The measurement and impact of five personality changes after brain injury. PhD Thesis, Univesity of Wales, Swansea

  28. Cummings JL (1997) The Neuropsychiatric Inventory Assessing psychopathology in dementia patients. Neurology 48(5 Suppl 6):10S–16S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Binetti G, Magni E, Rozzini L, Bianchetti A, Trabucchi M, Cummings JL (1995) Neuropsychiatric inventory: validazione italiana di una scala per la valutazione psicopatologica nella demenza. Giorn Geront 1995(43):864–865

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kertesz A, Nadkarni N, Davidson W, Thomas AW (2000) The Frontal Behavioral Inventory in the differential diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 6(04):460–468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Alberici A et al (2007) The Frontal Behavioural Inventory (Italian version) differentiates frontotemporal lobar degeneration variants from Alzheimer’s disease. Neurol Sci 28(2):80–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cattellani R (2006) Neuropsicologia delle sindromi post-traumatiche. Problemi clinici, diagnostici e sociofamiliari nella prospettiva medicolegale. Raffaello Cortina Editore

  33. Levin HS, High WM, Goethe KE, Sisson RA, Overall JE, Rhoades HM, Gary HE (1987) The neurobehavioural rating scale: assessment of the behavioural sequelae of head injury by the clinician. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 50(2):183–193

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Varney NR (1989) Iowa collateral head injury interview. Neuropsychology 5:223–225

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cattran C, Oddy M, Wood R (2010) The development of a measure of emotional regulation following acquired brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 33:672–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Oddy M, Cattran CJ, Wood RL (2008) The development of a measure of motivational changes following acquired brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 33:672–679

    Google Scholar 

  37. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24):3186–3191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rust J, Golombok S (1999) Constructing your own questionnaire. Modern psychometrics. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  39. Teasdale G, Jennett B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 2:81–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hagen C, Malkmus D, Durham P (1979) Cognitive assessment and goal setting. In rehabilitation of the head injuried adult: comprehensive management. In: Professional staff association of Rancho Los Amigos Hospital Inc, Downey

  41. Shields SA (1991) Gender in the psychology of emotion: A selective research review. In: Strongman KT (ed) International review of studies on emotion. Wiley, New York, pp 227–245

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cattelani R, Corsini D, Posteraro L, Agosti M, Saccavini M (2009) The Italian version of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4. A new measure of brain injury outcome. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 45(4):513–519

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benedetta Basagni.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 95 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 94 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basagni, B., Navarrete, E., Bertoni, D. et al. The Italian version of the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust (BIRT) personality questionnaires: five new measures of personality change after acquired brain injury. Neurol Sci 36, 1793–1798 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: