MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611391946 · doi:10.1111/bjc.12134

Psychological traits predict impaired awareness of deficits independently of neuropsychological factors in chronic traumatic brain injury

2017· article· en· W2611391946 on OpenAlexaff
Zorry Belchev, Neta Levy, Itamar Berman, Hila Levinzon, Dan Hoofien, Asaf Gilboa

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsPsychologyNeuropsychologyClinical psychologyDenialPsychopathyPersonalityAnxietyTraumatic brain injuryAnosognosiaPsychiatryCognitionPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To dissociate injury-related factors from psychological contributions to impaired awareness of deficits following traumatic brain injury (TBI); impaired awareness is theorized to partly reflect psychological factors (e.g., denial), but empirical evidence for this theory is scarce. DESIGN: We examined how different factors predict awareness in patients undergoing rehabilitation (N = 43). Factors included (1) neurological (injury severity), (2) neuropsychological loss, (3) psychological (denial, projection, identification), and (4) personality (narcissism). METHODS/MAIN MEASURES: The Patient Competency Rating Scale, comparing patient with clinician reports on different functional domains; the Thematic Apperception Test, an injury-independent measure of the propensity to mobilize specific defence mechanisms; and the Narcissism Personality Inventory. RESULTS: Impaired awareness was not predicted by injury-related and neuropsychological scores but was significantly predicted by use of primitive defence mechanisms (denial and projection). Patients who underestimate their abilities also demonstrated high denial levels, but contrary to underestimators, this was positively related to depression and negatively to awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Primitive defence mechanism use significantly contributes to impaired awareness independent of injury-related factors, particularly in domains associated with self-identity. Well-validated tests of defence mechanism mobilization are needed to support clinical interpretation of and intervention with impaired awareness. More research is needed to understand the psychology of hypersensitivity to deficits. PRACTITIONER POINTS: This study provides an empirical demonstration of dissociable contributions of neurological and psychological factors to awareness of deficits in TBI. Trait proclivity to mobilize defence mechanisms in response to anxiety-provoking situations can be measured, and strongly predicts impaired awareness. Importantly, measures of psychological reactions were independent of responses to the neurological deficits themselves, discriminating between psychological and neurological contributions to impaired awareness. The importance of identifying psychological reactions to impaired awareness and hindering rehabilitation success is highlighted, and vital for clinicians to consider during the rehabilitation process. Psychological reactions to TBI can be identified using well-validated, quantitative measures of the use of psychological defences (e.g., Cramer's Thematic Apperception Test scoring system), and the authors suggest this is a critical step to properly characterize and manage awareness in patients during treatment. Although only TBI patients were examined, the results may inform impaired awareness that occur as a result of other disorders and illnesses. The patients in this study were in the chronic stages of the injury, and therefore, the results may not generalize to patients in more acute stages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.338
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207