Abstract
Clinicians and managers involved in head injury services now generally accept that the measurement of outcome constitutes an important part of the process that informs professionals and improves the service. What is less clear is how the desire to measure can be translated into practice. The purpose of this chapter is to consider the process by which appropriate measures are chosen to meet the particular needs of an individual professional, a rehabilitation team or a service planner, and to reflect adequately the change their treatment has brought about. We provide a practical framework, which guides the process of choosing measures but allows the reader to tailor that process to their particular circumstances and evolve solutions appropriate to them. It is hoped that description of the experiences (both positive and negative) of the team working at the Head Injury Rehabilitation Centre (HIRC) in Sheffield, UK will benefit other clinicians who are in the process of setting up outcome studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet 1982; 1: 480–487.
Reitan RM, Davison LA. Clinical Neuro-Psychology: Current Status and Applications. New York: Hemisphere, 1974.
Brooks N. Defining outcome. Brain Injury 1989; 3: 325–329.
DeRenzi E, Faglioni R Normative data and screening power of a shortened version of the Token Test. Cortex 1978; 14: 41–49.
Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet 1974; ii: 81–84.
Shores RS, Marosszeky JE, Sandanam J et al. Preliminary validation of a clinical scale for measuring the duration of post-traumatic amnesia. Medical Journal of Australia 1986; 144: 569–572.
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. Functional Assessment Measure (unpublished). 751 South Bascom Avenue, San José, CA 95128.
Cope DN, Cole JR, Hall KM et al. Brain injury: analysis of outcome in a post-acute rehabilitation system. Brain Injury 1991; 5: 111–125.
State University of New York. Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation and Functional Independence Measure. Version 3.0. Buffalo, NY: SUNY, 1990.
Campbell M. Functional milestones; assessment of physical function in the adult post head-injury (unpublished). Head Injury Rehabilitation Centre, Albert Terrace Road, Sheffield.
Rappaport M, Hall KM, Hopkins HK. Disability Rating Scale for severe head trauma: coma to community. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1982; 63: 118–123.
Livingston MG, Livingston HM. The Glasgow Assessment Schedule: clinical and research assessment of head injury outcome. International Rehabilitation Medicine 1985; 7: 145–149.
Wilson B, Cockburn J, Baddeley ADB. The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test Manual. Titchfield: Thames Valley Test Company, PO14 4AF, 1985.
Tyerman R, Tyerman A, Howard P et al. The Chessington Occupational Therapy Neurological Assessment Battery. Nottingham: Nottingham Rehabilitation Limited, 1986.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Body, R., Campbell, M. (1995). Choosing outcome measures. In: Chamberlain, M.A., Neumann, V., Tennant, A. (eds) Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2871-9_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2871-9_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-56593-307-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-2871-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive