The reliability and validity of the Community Integration Measure in persons with traumatic brain injury.
Griffen JA, Hanks RA, Meachen SJ. Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, 5057 Woodward Ave., Detroit, MI 48202, USA. jgriffen@wayne.edu Rehabil Psychol. 2010 Aug;55(3):292-7.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the psychometric properties of the Community Integration Measure (CIM), a scale that assesses self-perceived quality of community integration, among persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHOD: Persons (N = 279) with TBI completed the CIM, as well as other measures of community integration and quality of life, and were followed up to 15 years postinjury.
RESULTS: The CIM was found to be a reliable instrument with adequate internal consistency. Validity was demonstrated in its relationship to other measures of community integration and life satisfaction. Utility was evident in its prediction of perceived social support.
CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the CIM is an adequate measure of community integration for persons with histories of TBI of up to 15 years.
Assessment of community integration following traumatic brain injury.
Salter K, Foley N, Jutai J, Bayley M, Teasell R. Aging, Rehabilitation & Geriatric Care Program, Lawson Health Research Institute, Parkwood Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada. katherine.salter@sjhc.london.on.ca Brain Inj. 2008 Oct;22(11):820-35.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Despite the importance of community integration to individuals with traumatic brain injury, it is assessed relatively infrequently. The present paper provides a review of current approaches to the assessment of community integration, including evaluation of psychometric and administrative properties reported in the literature.
MAIN OUTCOME AND RESULTS: Based on results from existing systematic reviews, the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ), Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (CHART), Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNLI), Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale (SPRS) and Community Integration Measure (CIM) were included in the present study. Descriptive details are provided along with results of psychometric evaluations and discussion of the strengths and limitations associated with each instrument.
CONCLUSIONS: The instruments reviewed all provide assessment of three core elements of community integration: relationships with others, independence in one’s own living situation and meaningful activities. Within the context of available information, the CIQ and RNLI appear the most reliable and valid, objective and subjective assessments of community reintegration, respectively. Caution is recommended in use of these tools by proxy raters. Unfortunately, with the exception of the CIQ and RNLI, evaluation of measurement characteristics and clinical usefulness is lacking. To promote an informed process of selection of tools, further evaluation is recommended.