Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Individualized vs. global assessments of quality of life after head injury and their susceptibility to response shift
Author(s): Blair, Hannah
Wilson, J T Lindsay
Gouick, Jo
Gentleman, Douglas
Contact Email:
Keywords: Traumatic brain injury
quality of life
response shift
Issue Date: Jun-2010
Date Deposited: 19-Sep-2012
Citation: Blair H, Wilson JTL, Gouick J & Gentleman D (2010) Individualized vs. global assessments of quality of life after head injury and their susceptibility to response shift. Brain Injury, 24 (6), pp. 833-843.
Abstract: Primary objective: The aim was to compare individualized and global assessments of quality of life (QoL) after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to investigate perceived changes in QoL. Methods and procedures: The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL-DW) and Hadorn's overall 1-10 QoL Scale were administered to 28 participants 1-10 years post-injury together with the GOS-E, HADS and SF-36. Perceived change in quality of life after TBI was investigated by comparing current and retrospective judgements. Main outcome and results: Correlations between the QoL measures confirm validity of the SEIQoL-DW; however, correlations were generally stronger for the simpler 1-10 Scale. Paradoxically, there was little overall change in the mean QoL when current and retrospective judgements were compared; with some participants reporting worse quality of life before injury. A positive change in perceived QoL was associated with better overall functioning. Conclusions: Where an overall rating of QoL is required it seems that Hadorn's 1-10 Scale is a simpler and more direct measure than the SEIQoL-DW. The greater detail provided by the SEIQoL-DW may mean it is of benefit when looking at individual differences. The results suggest that both the SEIQoL-DW and Hadorn's scale are susceptible to response shift (where a person changes the basis on which they evaluate QoL); and this has implications for the interpretation of QoL assessments.
DOI Link: 10.3109/02699051003789203
Rights: The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. 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.
Licence URL(s):

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
jtlwilson_BI_2010.pdfFulltext - Published Version350.28 kBAdobe PDFUnder Permanent Embargo    Request a copy

Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.

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.