Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Drs Neumann and Hammond) and Biostatistics (Dr Jang and Ms Bhamidipalli), Indiana University School of Medicine (Dr Witwer), Indianapolis; Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana, Indianapolis (Drs Neumann and Hammond); Division of Clinical Neuropsychology and Rehabilitation Psychology, H. Ben Taub Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Baylor College of Medicine and Harris Health System, Houston, Texas (Dr Sander); and Brain Injury Research Center, TIRR Memorial Hermann, Houston, Texas (Dr Sander).
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2021;36(3):E170-E177. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000635.
To compare construct and predictive validity, readability, and time-to-administer of 2 negative attribution measures in participants with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Two TBI rehabilitation hospitals.
Eighty-five adults with complicated mild to severe TBI.
Negative attributions (intent, hostility, and blame) and anger responses to hypothetical scenarios were measured with the Epps scenarios and the Ambiguous Intention Hostility Questionnaire (AIHQ). Trait aggression was measured with the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ).
Associations between attributions and anger responses (ie, construct validity) within each measure were significant (Epps: r = 0.61-0.74; AIHQ: r = 0.39-0.71); however, associations were stronger for Epps (Ps < .001). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) revealed attributions from both measures predicted BPAQ scores (area under the ROC curves = 0.6-0.8); predictive validity did not statistically differ between the 2 measures. Both had comparable readability (fifth- to sixth-grade levels), but Epps required longer administration times.
Negative attributions affect anger and aggression after TBI, making it important to identify suitable assessments for the TBI population. While psychometric properties of the AIHQ and Epps scenarios should be further explored, this study offers early support for the use of either instrument in persons with TBI. Advantages and disadvantages of the AIHQ and Epps scenarios are highlighted.
比较 2 种负性归因测量在创伤性脑损伤（TBI）患者中的结构和预测效度、可读性和施测时间。
2 家 TBI 康复医院。
85 名患有复杂轻度至重度 TBI 的成年人。
使用 Epps 情景和模糊意图敌意问卷（AIHQ）测量负性归因（意图、敌意和责备）和对假设情景的愤怒反应。特质攻击性用 Buss-Perry 攻击性问卷（BPAQ）测量。
每个测量工具内归因与愤怒反应之间的相关性（即结构效度）具有统计学意义（Epps：r = 0.61-0.74；AIHQ：r = 0.39-0.71）；然而，Epps 的相关性更强（P <.001）。受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线显示，来自这两种测量工具的归因均能预测 BPAQ 评分（ROC 曲线下面积=0.6-0.8）；这两种测量工具的预测效度无统计学差异。两者可读性相当（五年级至六年级水平），但 Epps 需要更长的施测时间。
TBI 后负性归因会影响愤怒和攻击性，因此识别适合 TBI 人群的评估方法很重要。虽然 AIHQ 和 Epps 情景的心理测量特性需要进一步探索，但本研究为 TBI 患者使用这两种工具提供了早期支持。突出了 AIHQ 和 Epps 情景的优缺点。
