Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a composite scoring solution for the Neurobehavioral Functioning Inventory

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Little research has been conducted towards the development and evaluation of a measure of quality of life specific to head/brain injury populations. Accordingly, we examined responses to the Neurobehavioral Functioning Inventory in the context of a clinical trial for head injury patients (n=655) conducted in 14 countries. To reduce the 66 item scale into a smaller number of composite scales, principal components analysis was conducted. Scales were constructed assessing four categories of symptoms: cognitive deficits, depression, aggression and somatization. The internal reliabilities (a coefficient) of the four scales were generally acceptable (range=0.79–0.92). Scores on all four scales correlated significantly with patient-rated overall quality of life and all but the aggression scale correlated significantly with overall clinical severity. The need for more formal evaluation of this and other disease-specific measures is discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measurements in clinical trials: choosing the right approach. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kreutzer JS, Leininger BE, Doherty K, Waaland PK. General Health and History Questionnaire. Richmond, VA: Medical College of Virginia, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Severe Brain Injury, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kreutzer JS, Marwitz JH, Seel R, Serio CD. Validation of a Neurobehavioral Functioning Inventory for adults with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 116–124.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Straw RN, Musch B, Murray FT et al. A Phase III European/Australian Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Tirilazad Mesylate (U-74006F) in Patients with Acute Moderate or Severe Head Injury (Protocol P/2700/0036). Upjohn, 1996.

  5. The EuroQOL Group. EuroQOL – A new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. Advances in Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Models. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books, 1979:39.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ki FY, Chow SC. Statistical justification for the use of composite scores in quality of life assessment. Drug Info J 1995; 29: 715–727.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rummel RJ. Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1970: 298.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stevens J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992: 378.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 1993; 78: 98–104.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Efron B, Gong G. A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. Am Statist 1983; 37: 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mooney CZ, Duval RD. Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference. Newbury Park: Sage, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Polsky D, Glick H, Willke R, Schulman K. Confidence intervals for cost effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ in press.

  14. Bullinger M, Power MJ, Aaronson NK, Cella DF, Anderson RT. Creating and evaluating cross-cultural instruments. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn. Item reduction Quality of Life Research.Vol 8. 1999 23 Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 659–668.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen P, Cohen J, Teresi J, Marchi M, Velez CN. Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations causal models. Appl Psych Meas 1990; 14: 183–196.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Anderson RT, McFarlane M, Naughton MJ, Shumaker SA. Conceptual issues and considerations in crosscultural validation of generic health-related quality of life instruments. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 605–612.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Economics Research Unit, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington DC, USA

    K. P. Weinfurt & K. A. Schulman

  2. Pharmacia &; Upjohn, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

    R. Willke

  3. Division of General Internal Medicine Department of Medicine, and the Leonard Davis Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    H. A. Glick

Authors
  1. K. P. Weinfurt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Willke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. A. Glick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. A. Schulman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weinfurt, K.P., Willke, R., Glick, H.A. et al. Towards a composite scoring solution for the Neurobehavioral Functioning Inventory. Qual Life Res 8, 17–24 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026411129270

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026411129270

Search

Navigation