Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¼´Ê±¿ª½±

Acute TBI: (Struchen et al, 2008; n = 80 TBI patients, mean age = 37.70 (12.14) years; mean education = 13.20 (2.14) years)

??????Chronic TBI Compared to Healthy Controls: (Douglas et al, 2010; n = 43 TBI patients, mean age at time of injury 32.93 (11.37) years; mean time since injury 5.36 (3.61) years; n = 43 controls, matched to the TBI group in terms of education, age and gender).

*Based on Grice¡¯s (1975) Maxims of Cooperative Principle of conversation

Acute TBI: (Struchen et al, 2008)

Chronic TBI: (Watts and Douglas 2006; n = 12 sever TBI patients and 12 matched controls; TBI patients had post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) for at least 7 days; mean age (TBI) 32.33 (13.89) years; Time post injury 502.5 (418.68) days)

*EET = The Emotion Evaluation Test 

• Adequate: correlation between LCQ ratings made by close others and performance on the facial expression tasks (r = ¨C.532, p = .037)
• Not Significant: correlation between LCQ self-reports and performance on the facial expression tasks (r = -.412, p = .091)

Chronic TBI: (Douglas et al, 2007; n = 88 TBI patients and 71 close others; mean age = 32.26 (12.12) years; months post injury 64.40 (70.15) months; patients experienced a loss of consciousness and post-traumatic amnesia for at least 7 days) 

• A seven-factor structure, in which 27 of 30 items clearly loaded on a factor, accounted for 60.88% of total variance.

Acute TBI: (Struchen et al, 2008; n = 80 TBI patients, mean age = 37.70 (12.14) years; mean years of education = 13.20 (2.14) years)

Struchen's validation study resulted in a four-factor model composed of 27 items that accounted for 48.25% of the variance.  Factors include:

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000; n = 147, primary subjects and 109 close others; mean age = 20.6 years; participants were Australian students)  

• Mean (SD) scores: Primary subjects, 52.47 (9.62), range = 31 to 78 

• Mean (SD) scores: Close others, 47.17 (9.93), range = 30 to 77

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000; n = 24; subjects assessed twice with an 8 weeks interval between assessments)

• Adequate primary subject test-retest reliability (r = 0.7558)
• Poor close other test-retest reliability (r = 0.4784)

The LCQ is administered to both the TBI patient and a close other.  For differences in perceived communication refer to the normative data section above. 

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000)

• Excellent primary subject internal consistency (r =0.8538) 
• Excellent close other internal consistency (r = 0.8551)

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000)

Construct validity was established using factor analysis. 25 of the 30 items loaded on one of the following six dimensions:

Student Validation Sample: (Douglas et al, 2000)

Items were selected for the measure based on two guiding principles:

• Fundamental Characteristics of normal effective communication
• An assessment of characteristics of cognitive-communicative breakdown following brain injury

Assessments of what constitutes normal communication was further guided by Grices Co-operative Principle of normal discourse (1975).
 

Literature examining deficits of communication following TBI was also consulted prior to item construction.