Measurement properties of the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life (TBI‑QoL) and Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life (SCI‑QoL) measurement systems: a systematic review

Systematic Reviews, 2025 · DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02722-x · Published: January 23, 2025

Participation Rehabilitation Research Methodology & Design

Simple Explanation

This review systematically examines the quality of life measurement tools, specifically the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life (TBI-QoL) and Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life (SCI-QoL) systems. The study uses the COSMIN framework to evaluate existing research on these tools, focusing on their measurement properties within rehabilitation populations. The findings help rehabilitation clinicians and researchers understand the strengths and weaknesses of these measurement systems for assessing patient-reported outcomes.

Study Duration

Not specified

Participants

16 studies for SCI-QoL and 14 studies for TBI-QoL

Evidence Level

Systematic Review

Key Findings

1
Both TBI-QoL and SCI-QoL show sufficient content, structural, internal consistency, and construct validity.
2
SCI-QoL demonstrates better cross-cultural validity and reliability compared to TBI-QoL.
3
Neither TBI-QoL nor SCI-QoL has sufficient evidence for criterion validity, limiting their use in predicting patient outcomes.

Research Summary

This systematic review assesses the measurement properties of TBI-QoL and SCI-QoL using the COSMIN framework to guide evidence-based application. The review finds sufficient content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity for both TBI-QoL and SCI-QoL short forms. The study identifies the need for future research to address gaps in evidence related to measurement error, responsiveness, and criterion validity for both measures.

Practical Implications

Clinical Integration

Clinicians can use TBI-QoL and SCI-QoL to describe and evaluate patients in routine assessments for personalized care planning.

Research Applications

Researchers can use TBI-QoL and SCI-QoL for outcome measurement, applying caution in diverse populations due to limited cross-cultural validity evidence.

Future Research

Future studies should focus on measurement error, responsiveness, and criterion validity to improve the interpretation of changes in TBI-QoL and SCI-QoL scores over time.

Study Limitations

1
Limited number of articles per domain for both TBI-QoL and SCI-QoL.
2
Lack of criterion validity evidence for both TBI-QoL and SCI-QoL.
3
Some methodological choices in included studies did not fully meet COSMIN standards, potentially affecting quality scores.

Your Feedback

Was this summary helpful?

Back to Participation