Assessing accident phobia in mild traumatic brain injury: The Accident Fear Questionnaire.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite a documented prevalence of accident phobia in almost 40% of motor vehicle accident (MVA) survivors, the onset of accident phobia after traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains poorly understood. There is currently a body of knowledge about posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in patients with TBI, but less is known about accident phobia following TBI, particularly in cases of mild TBI (mTBI). Accident phobia can impede safe return to driving or motor vehicle travel, inhibiting return to daily functioning. In addition, pain complaints have been found to correlate positively with postinjury anxiety disorders. METHOD: The present study sought to determine the reliability and validity of the Accident Fear Questionnaire (AFQ), a measure used to assess accident phobia, in 72 patients with mTBI using secondary data analysis and the subsequent development of accident phobia postinjury. Furthermore, we sought to examine the impact of pain, anxiety, and depression complaints on the AFQ. RESULTS: Results reveal convergent validity and reliability in mTBI populations. Additionally, pain, anxiety, and depression measures were significantly correlated with scores on the AFQ. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometrically, the phobia avoidance subscale of the AFQ is a reliable measure for use with mTBI populations, although some limitations were found. In particular, the accident profile (AP) subscale was not found to be reliable or valid and could be eliminated from the AFQ. Collectively, the present study contributes to the small body of published literature evaluating accident phobia in patients with mTBI and the impact of pain on the development of postinjury anxiety disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".