| Title |
Assessment of primary rehabilitation needs in neurological rehabilitation: translation, adaptation and face validity of the Danish version of Rehabilitation Complexity Scale-Extended
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Neurology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12883-016-0728-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Maribo, Asger R. Pedersen, Jim Jensen, Jørgen F. Nielsen |
| Abstract |
Assessing primary rehabilitation needs in patients with acquired brain injury is a challenge due to case complexity and the heterogeneity of symptoms after brain injury. The Rehabilitation Complexity Scale-Extended (RCS-E) is an instrument used in assessment of rehabilitation complexity in patients with severe brain injury. The aim of the present study was to translate and test the face validity of the RCS-E as a referral tool for primary rehabilitation. Face validity was tested in a sample of patients with acquired brain injury. Ten clinicians and records from 299 patients with acquired brain injury were used in the translation, cross-cultural adaptation and face validation study of the RCS-E. RCS-E was translated into Danish by a standardized forward-backward translation by experts in the field. Face validity was assessed by a multi-professional team assessing 299 patients. The team was asked their opinion on whether the RCS-E presents a sufficient description of the patients. The RCS-E was translated according to international guidelines and tested by health professionals; some adaptations were required due to linguistic problems and differences in the national health system structures. The patients in the study had a mean age of 63.9 years (SD 14.7); 61 % were male. We found an excellent face validity with a mean score of 8.2 (SD 0.34) assessed on a 0-10 scale. The RCS-E demonstrated to be a valid assessment of primary rehabilitation needs in patients with acquired brain injury. Excellent face validity indicates that the RCS-E is feasible for assessing primary rehabilitation needs and the present study suggests its applicability to the Danish health care system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 27% |
| Psychology | 5 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,073,724
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#818
of 2,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,640
of 318,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#27
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.