Development and validation of a tool for the assessment of psychiatric disability in patients with traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Generic instruments recommended for disability assessment are not useful in delineating the exact contribution of psychiatric disability to total disability following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Aim: To develop and validate a tool to assess psychiatric disability due to the behavioral and cognitive impairments following TBI, named the Cognitive and Behavioral Inventory (CBI). Methods: The study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in South India. The development of the tool was performed after a thorough literature search and discussions with experts. The face, content, and linguistic validity of the tool were established. Criterion validity was established by correlation with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Neuropsychiatry Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) for cognitive and behavioral domains, respectively. The Intraclass correlation was calculated to assess the inter-rater reliability. Results: The item-level content validity index of the tool ranged from 1 to 0.86. The scale-level content validity index, calculated using the averaging and universal agreement method, was 0.97 and 0.88, respectively. The point estimate of criterion validity assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient for the cognitive domain of the tool with MoCA was 0.87, and the behavioral domain of the tool with NPI-Q was 0.79. The intraclass correlation coefficients for the full scale, behavioral domain, and cognitive domain were all 0.99. Conclusion: CBI is a tool with high face, content, linguistic, and criterion validity, as well as good interrater reliability. It can be used to assess the behavioral and cognitive impairments following TBI, and thus psychiatric disability, in a very short time by a clinician.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".