Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Interpreting Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) scores: Cross-walk with the Short Form-36
Author(s): Wilson, J T Lindsay
Marsden-Loftus, Isaac
Koskinen, Sanna
Bakx, Wilbert
Bullinger, Monika
Formisano, Rita
Maas, Andrew
Neugebauer, Edmund
Powell, Jane
Sarajuuri, Jaana
Sasse, Nadine
Von Steinbuchel, Nicole
Von Wild, Klaus
Truelle, Jean-Luc
Contact Email:
Keywords: TBI
outcome measures
health-related quality of life
Issue Date: Jan-2017
Date Deposited: 6-May-2016
Citation: Wilson JTL, Marsden-Loftus I, Koskinen S, Bakx W, Bullinger M, Formisano R, Maas A, Neugebauer E, Powell J, Sarajuuri J, Sasse N, Von Steinbuchel N, Von Wild K & Truelle J (2017) Interpreting Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) scores: Cross-walk with the Short Form-36. Journal of Neurotrauma, 34 (1), pp. 59-65.
Abstract: The Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) instruments are traumatic brain injury-specific assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), with established validity and reliability. The purpose of the study is to help improve the interpretability of the two QOLIBRI summary scores (the QOLIBRI Total score and the QOLBRI Overall Scale score). An analysis was conducted of 761 patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) that took part in the QOLIBRI validation studies. A cross-walk between QOLIBRI scores and the SF-36 Mental Component Summary norm-based scoring system was performed using geometric mean regression analysis. The exercise supports a previous suggestion that QOLIBRI Total scores < 60 indicate low or impaired HRQoL, and indicate that the corresponding score on the QOLIBRI-OS is <52. The percentage of cases in the sample that fell into the ‘impaired HRQoL’ category were 36% for the Mental Component Summary, 38% for the QOLIBRI Total, and 39% for the QOLIBRI-OS. Relationships between the QOLIBRI scales and the Glasgow Outcome Scale – Extended (GOSE), as a measure of global function, are presented in the form of means and standard deviations that allow comparison with other studies, and data on age and gender are presented for the QOLIBRI-OS. While bearing in mind the potential imprecision of the comparison, the findings provide a framework for evaluating QOLIBRI summary scores in relation to generic HRQoL that improves their interpretability.
DOI Link: 10.1089/neu.2015.4287
Rights: This item has been embargoed for a period. During the embargo please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study. Final publication is available from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Wilson et al 2016 Interpreting QOLIBRI scores Final.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version496.11 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.