Results of Data Analysis
Results of Data Analysis
The clinical findings yielded by the CAMMRI give us an opportunity to accurately measure and assess the current functioning of our clients and will be sensitive to changes clients’ rehabilitation processes. These preliminary results suggest that the CAMMRI may allow professionals to be better equipped to evaluate treatment techniques and efficacy issues, and in turn, develop a more sensitive rehabilitation program for the clients.
Correlations between CAMMRI and the others standard assessment measures of similar and differing constructs were examined for evidence of construct validity. The measures used for comparison are: Western Neuro Sensory Stimulation Profile (WNSSP), the Johnson Rehabilitation Institute Coma Recovery Scale (JFK) and the Chedoke-McMaster Impairment Inventory (CMII).
The data analysis confirmed the hypotheses showing that the Western Neuro Sensory Stimulation Profile (WNSSP) is the measure most similar to the CAMMRI. The two scales show a pattern of correlations on average of 0.5. However, the WNSSP is not as comprehensive as the CAMMRI because it does not include the motor response subscales.
The Johnson Rehabilitation Institute Coma Recovery Scale (JFK) correlates on average of .4 with the similar subscales of the CAMMRI. The CAMMRI offers 22 subscales to a complete assessment of the client and the JFK compiles the assessment in only 6 different areas.
The Chedoke-McMaster Impairment Inventory correlates on average of .4 with the corresponding CAMMRI scales, and only assesses the motor responses of the clients.
Based on the data, there is a low to moderate correlation between the CAMMRI and related scales from other commonly used assessment tools. This supports that the CAMMRI measures the various key areas tapped by other scales but further provides a clear understanding of the client by the very nature of its comprehensiveness.
The average of inter-rater reliability between the same scales tested by two different therapists is 0.9; including two sub-tests with Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of 1.0, representing an impressive inter rater-reliability score for this measure.
This data confirmed that the CAMMRI is a sensitive measure and addresses all the necessary areas needed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the clientele. Furthermore, the CAMMRI correlated with results from other scales on related areas of assessment.
Complete data can be provided upon request; please contact Research Leader Ana Gollega, at email@example.com.
Alberta Health (1991). Services and programs in Alberta for persons with brain injuries
Discussion paper. Edmonton: Research and Planning Branch, Alberta Health.
Allison, S. C., & Abraham, L. D. (1995). Correlation of quantitative measures with the Modified Ashworth Scale in the assessment of plantar flexor spasticity in patients with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurology, 242(10), 699-706.
Ansell, B. J., & Keenan, J. E. (1989). The Western Neuro Sensory Stimulation Profile: A tool for assessing slow-to-recover head-injured patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70, 104-108.
Giacino, J. T., & Kalmar, K. (1997). The vegetative and minimally conscious states:
A comparison of clinical features and functional outcome. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 12 (4): 36-51.
Giacino, J. T., Kezmarsky, M. A., DeLuca, J., & Cicerone, K. D. (1991). Monitoring rate of recovery to predict outcome in minimally responsive patients. Archives of physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 72(11), 897-901.
Gill-Thwaites, H. (1997). The sensory modality assessment rehabilitation technique – a tool for
assessment and treatment of patients with severe brain injury in a vegetative state. Brain Injury 11(10): 724-734.
Gowland, C., Stratford, P., Ward, M., Moreland, J., Torresin, W., Van Hullenaar, S., Sanford, J., Barreca, S., Vanspall, B., & Plews, N. (1993). Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke, 24(1), 58-63.
Gray, D. S. (2000). Slow-to-recover severe traumatic brain injury: A review of outcomes and rehabilitation effectiveness. Brain Injury 14 (11), 1003-1014.
LeNavenec, C.L. & Reimer, M.A. (2002). Outcome indicators of quality of life changes for people with
traumatic brain injury in a community rehabilitation program. Unpublished data.
Malkmus, D., Booth, B.J. & Kodimer, C. (1980). Rehabilitation of the head injured adult:
Comprehensive cognitive management. Downy CA: Professional Staff Association, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center.
Reimer, M., Conrad, B., Newcommon, N. & Annear, D. (1990). Validity and usefulness of cognitive functioning tools with patients hospitalized for head injury. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 22(4), 252-253
Rockwood, K., Joyce, B., & Stolee, P. (1997). Use of goal attainment scaling in measuring clinically important change in cognitive rehabilitation patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(5), 581-8.
Sheard, C., Adams, R. D., & Davis, P.J. (1991). Reliability and agreement of ratings of ataxic dysarthric intelligibility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34(2), 285-293.
Suzuki, M., Otomo, A., Yamada, K., Shutou, M., Kano, K., Tsuchiya, S., & Watanabe, Y. (1993). Physical fitness associated with falls in the institutionalized elderly (English abstract). Kango Kenkyu – Japanese Journal of Nursing Research, 26, 471-481.