Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:50:54.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards Measuring Community Understanding of Traumatic Brain Injury: The Structure and Potential Utility of the Head Injury Knowledge Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2015

Matt Thomas  and
Emily Jobse
Matt Thomas*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia
Emily Jobse
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Matt Thomas, School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst NSW 2795, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Background and aims: International research has shown the public hold various misconceptions about traumatic brain injury (TBI). Yet, relatively little has been done towards developing appropriate measures of public knowledge of TBI. The Head Injury Knowledge Scale (HIKS, Ono, Ownsworth, & Walters, 2011) is a newly developed measure of misconceptions and expectations about the effects of TBI. Additional investigation of its psychometric properties appeared warranted. The aims of this further preliminary study were to examine the factor structure of the HIKS and the relationship between psychosocial variables and factor scores.

Method: A convenience sample comprising 167 adults, of whom 65% were females, responded to an online survey including the HIKS. The two-factor HIKS structure was tested using confirmatory factor analyses and the relationships between psychosocial variables and the HIKS factors were investigated.

Results: A good fit was found for the structure of the HIKS. All items loaded adequately onto the HIKS Over-generalisation and Minimisation factors and their internal consistencies were good. Significant differences between gender groups and for level of education were observed on the HIKS Over-generalisation scale, suggesting various groups in the community may have differing levels of knowledge of TBI.

Conclusion: This study confirmed the robustness of the HIKS factor structure. The HIKS is likely to be an important measure of community understanding of TBI in future research.

Keywords

Head Injury Knowledge Scaleconfirmatory factor analysispsychometric propertiesattributionsmisconceptions about brain injury
Type
Articles
Information
Brain Impairment , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , September 2015 , pp. 104 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AIHW. (2007). Disability in Australia: acquired brain injury. Bulletin no. 55. Cat no. AUS 96. Canberra: AIHW.Google Scholar
Anson, K., & Ponsford, J. (2006). Coping and emotional adjustment following traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 21 (3), 248–259.Google Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (1988). Comparitive fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238–246.Google Scholar
Block, C., Fabrizio, K., Bagley, B., Hannah, J., Camp, S., Mindingall, N.,. . . . Lokken, K. (2014). Assessment of veteran and caregiver knowledge about mild traumatic brain injury in a VA medical center. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 29 (1), 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 28 (4), 369–379.Google Scholar
Chapman, R.C., & Hudson, J.M. (2010). Beliefs about brain injury in Britain. Brain Injury, 24 (6), 797–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comrey, A.L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56 (5), 754.Google Scholar
Gouvier, W.D., Prestholdt, P.H., & Warner, M.S. (1988). A survey of common misconceptions about head injury and recovery. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 3 (4), 331–343.Google Scholar
Guilmette, T.J., & Paglia, M.F. (2004). The public's misconceptions about traumatic brain injury: a follow up survey. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19 (2), 183–189.Google Scholar
Helps, Y.L., Henley, G.I., & Harrison, J.E. (2008). Hospital separations due to traumatic brain injury, Australia 2004–05. Canberra, ACT: AIHW Communications, Media and Marketing Unit.Google Scholar
Hooper, S.R. (2006). Myths and misconceptions about traumatic brain injury: endorsements by school psychologists. Exceptionality, 14 (3), 171–182.Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hux, K., Schram, C.D., & Goeken, T. (2006). Misconceptions about brain injury: a survey replication study. Brain Injury, 20 (5), 547–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linden, M., & Boylan, A. (2010). ‘To be accepted as normal’: Public understanding and misconceptions concerning survivors of brain injury. Brain Injury, 24 (4), 642–650.Google Scholar
Linden, M.A., Braiden, H.-J., & Miller, S. (2013). Educational professionals’ understanding of childhood traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 27 (1), 92–102.Google Scholar
McClure, J., Buchanan, S., McDowall, J., & Wade, K. (2008). Attributions for behaviours of persons with brain injury: the role of perceived severity and time since injury. Brain Injury, 22 (9), 639–648.Google Scholar
McKendry, Y., Ownsworth, T., & Bettens, G.F. (2014). Comparing accuracy of knowledge of functional effects of schizophrenia and brain injury. Psychiatry Research, 219 (1), 225–227.Google Scholar
McLellan, T., Bishop, A., & McKinlay, A. (2010). Community attitudes toward individuals with traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16 (04), 705–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Jile, J.R., Ryan, L.M., Parks-Levy, J., Gouvier, W.D., Betz, B., Haptonstahl, D.E., & Coon, R.C. (1997). Effects of head injury experience on head injury misconceptions. International Journal of Rehabilitation and Health, 3 (1), 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, M., Ownsworth, T., & Walters, B. (2011). Preliminary investigation of misconceptions and expectations of the effects of traumatic brain injury and symptom reporting. Brain Injury, 25 (2), 237–249.Google Scholar
Pappadis, M.R., Sander, A.M., Struchen, M.A., Leung, P., & Smith, D.W. (2011). Common misconceptions about traumatic brain injury among ethnic minorities with TBI. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 26 (4), 301–311.Google Scholar
Pretorius, C., & Broodryk, M. (2013). Misconceptions about traumatic brain injuries among South African university students. South African Journal of Psychiatry, 19 (3), 75–80.Google Scholar
Ralph, A., & Derbyshire, C. (2013). Survivors of brain injury through the eyes of the public: a systematic review. Brain Injury, 27 (13–14), 1475–1491.Google Scholar
Rillotta, F., & Nettelbeck, T. (2007). Effects of an awareness program on attitudes of students without an intellectual disability towards persons with an intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 32 (1), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruff, R.M., & Jamora, C.W. (2009). Myths and mild traumatic brain injury. Psychological Injury and Law, 2 (1), 34–42.Google Scholar
Springer, J.A., Parmer, J.E., & Bouman, D.E. (1997). Common misconceptions about traumatic brain injury among family members of rehabilitation patients. The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation, 12 (3), 41–50.Google Scholar
Swift, T.L., & Wilson, S.L. (2001). Misconceptions about brain injury among the general public and non-expert health professionals: an exploratory study. Brain Injury, 15 (2), 149–165.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics: Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and applications. Washington: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D., Fisher, K.R., Purcal, C., Deeming, C., & Sawrikar, P. (2012). Community attitudes to people with disability: scoping project: Social Policy Research Centre, Disability Studies and Research Centre, University of New South Wales. URL: https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/hilda/Bibliography/Other_Publications/2013/Thompson_etal_community_attitudes_to_disability_op39.pdf Google Scholar
Ullman, J.B. (2001). Structural equation modelling. In Tabachnick, L.S. & Fidell, L.S. (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics. MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
WHO. (2006). Neurological disorders: a public health approach. Neurological disorders: public health challenges, pp. 41–69.Google Scholar
Willer, B., Johnson, W.E., Rempel, R.G., & Linn, R. (1993). A note concerning misconceptions of the general public about brain injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 8 (5), 461–465.Google Scholar
Yuhasz, J.E. (2013). Misconceptions about traumatic brain injury among correctional health care professionals. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 19 (2), 135–143.Google Scholar