School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):433-42. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182242f98.
Unawareness of deficits after acquired brain injury (ABI) is often reported in the clinic. Several methods have been developed to measure a patient's awareness of deficits after ABI; however, no criterion standard currently exists to measure this phenomenon.
To review all instruments for measuring awareness of deficits and evaluate their psychometric and conceptual properties as well as their feasibility.
Systematic literature search for available awareness measurement instruments used in experimental ABI studies. Instruments were divided into the following 4 assessment methods: clinician ratings, structured interviews, performance-based discrepancy, and self-other rating discrepancy methods. The quality of the instruments was evaluated.
The literature search identified 39 instruments and 8 of these were selected. The following 3 instruments stood out in terms of quality: Self-Awareness of Deficits Interview, Patient Competency Rating Scale, and Awareness Questionnaire.
Although these quantitative instruments are useful tools in research, they have limited utility in the clinic because they only measure intellectual awareness. Therefore, in addition to these instruments, qualitative tools should also be used to gain a complete view of a patient's awareness problem.
获得性脑损伤（ABI）后的缺陷意识在临床上经常被报道。已经开发了几种方法来测量 ABI 后患者的缺陷意识；然而，目前尚无测量这种现象的标准方法。
综述所有用于测量缺陷意识的工具，并评估其心理测量学和概念特性以及可行性。
对用于实验性 ABI 研究的现有意识测量工具进行系统的文献检索。仪器分为以下 4 种评估方法：临床医生评分、结构化访谈、基于表现的差异和自我与他人评分差异方法。评估了仪器的质量。
文献检索确定了 39 种工具，其中 8 种被选中。以下 3 种仪器在质量方面表现突出：缺陷自知力访谈、患者能力评定量表和意识问卷。
虽然这些定量工具在研究中是有用的工具，但它们在临床上的应用有限，因为它们仅测量智力意识。因此，除了这些工具外，还应使用定性工具来全面了解患者的意识问题。
Zotero 插件