Determining the Hierarchy of Coma Recovery Scale-Revised Rating Scale Categories and Alignment with Aspen Consensus Criteria for Patients with Brain Injury: A Rasch Analysis

Jennifer A. Weaver, Colorado State University, 3447, Occupational Therapy, 1573 Campus Delivery, Occupational Therapy Building, Fort Collins, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States, 80523-1019; jen.weaver@colostate.edu.
Alison Cogan, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 19975, Los Angeles, California, United States; alison.cogan@va.gov.
Katherine O'Brien, Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, 23458, Houston, Texas, United States; katherine.o'brien@memorialhermann.org.
Piper Hansen, University of Illinois Chicago College of Applied Health Sciences, 315410, Chicago, Illinois, United States; phanse2@uic.edu.
Joseph Giacino, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, 24498, PM&R, 300 1st Ave, Charlestown, Massachusetts, United States, 02129-3109; jgiacino@mgh.harvard.edu.
John Whyte, MossRehab/Einstein, Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 60 Township Line Rd., Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, United States, 19027; jwhyte@einstein.edu.
Theresa Bender Pape, Edward Hines Junior VA Hospital, 20013, Research and Development Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, 5000 S 5th Ave, Hines, Illinois, United States, 60141-1489; Theresa.BenderPape@va.gov.
Philip van der Wees, Radboud University, 6029, Department of Rehabilitation and IQ healthcare, Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands; vanderwees@gwu.edu.
Trudy Mallinson, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 43989, Department of Clinical Research and Leadership, Washington, District of Columbia, United States; trudy@gwu.edu.

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

5-16-2022

Journal

Journal of neurotrauma

DOI

10.1089/neu.2022.0095

Keywords

ADULT BRAIN INJURY; ASSESSMENT TOOLS; BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS; OUTCOME MEASURES; REHABILITATION

Abstract

This study aimed to empirically evaluate the hierarchical structure of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) rating scale categories and their alignment with the Aspen consensus criteria for determining disorders of consciousness (DoC) following a severe brain injury. CRS-R data from 262 patients with DoC following a severe brain injury were analyzed applying the partial credit Rasch Measurement Model. Rasch Analysis produced logit calibrations for each rating scale category. 28 of the 29 CRS-R rating scale categories were operationalized to the Aspen consensus criteria. We expected the hierarchical order of the calibrations to reflect Aspen consensus criteria. We also examined the association between the CRS-R Rasch person measures (indicative of performance ability) and states of consciousness as determined by the Aspen consensus criteria. Overall, the order of the 29 rating scale category calibrations reflected current literature regarding the continuum of neurobehavioral function: category 6 'Functional Object Use' of the Motor item was hardest for patients to achieve; category 0 'None' of the Oromotor/Verbal item was easiest to achieve. Of the 29 rating scale categories, six were not ordered as expected. Four rating scale categories reflecting the VS/UWS had higher calibrations (reflecting greater neurobehavioral function) than the easiest MCS item (category 2 'Fixation' of the Visual item). Two rating scale categories, one reflecting MCS and one not operationalized to the Aspen consensus criteria, had higher calibrations than the easiest eMCS item (category 2 'Functional: Accurate' of the Communication item). CRS-R person measures (indicating amount of neurobehavioral function) and states of consciousness, based on Aspen consensus criteria, showed a strong correlation (rs=0.86, p<0.01). Our study provides empirical evidence for revising the diagnostic criteria for MCS to also include category 2 'Localization to Sound' of the Auditory item and for eMCS to include category 4 'Consistent Movement to Command' of the Auditory item.

Department

Clinical Research and Leadership

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS