Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

The Brief Rehabilitation Assessment for Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer (BRASH)

Content and Discriminant Validity

Komar, Alyssa, MSc1; Dunphy, Colleen, BScPT, MSc2; McEwen, Sara, PhD3; Rios, Jorge, BSc4; Polatajko, Helene, PhD, OT Reg (Ont), OT(C), FCAOT, FCAHS5; Ringash, Jolie, MD, MSc, FRCPC6

doi: 10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000107
RESEARCH REPORTS

Background: Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) face challenges that may negatively impact health-related quality of life. Despite evidence suggesting that rehabilitation addresses many of their needs, survivors of HNC do not consistently receive rehabilitation services.

Purpose: To evaluate the content and discriminant validity of the newly developed Brief Rehabilitation Assessment for Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer (BRASH), a patient-centered assessment tool.

Methods: To assess content validity, 20 health care professionals completed the Content Validity Index (CVI). To assess discriminant validity, the BRASH goals and scores of 23 participants were compared with the items and scores of a standardized health-related quality-of-life measure. Data were analyzed using Spearman ρ correlation coefficients.

Results: The BRASH received a CVI score of 0.81, indicating acceptable content validity. The BRASH's physical, cognitive/psychosocial, activity/role, open-ended question, and goal-setting domains received CVI scores of 0.81, 0.70, 0.84, 1.00, and 0.74, respectively, indicating acceptable content validity by domains. Regarding discriminant validity, of the 35 goals identified in the BRASH, 71% were addressed by the standardized measure. Correlations between the scores on the BRASH and the standardized measures were moderate to weak.

Limitations: This study provides initial support for content and discriminant validity of the BRASH. Future research should examine additional aspects of validity and responsiveness.

Conclusions: The BRASH demonstrates acceptable content validity, suggesting that it adds value to patient-centered rehabilitation consultation for survivors of HNC. In comparison with a standardized quality-of-life measure, it specifically focuses on rehabilitation needs of the individual patient.

1Medical Student, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2Physiotherapist, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

3Scientist, St John's Rehab Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

4Lab Manager, St John's Rehab Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

5Professor, Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

6Radiation Oncologist, The Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and Professor, Radiation Oncology and Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada

Correspondence: Jolie Ringash, MD, MSc, FRCPC, The Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 610 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada (jolie.ringash@rmp.uhn.on.ca).

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (www.rehabonc.com).

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Copyright 2018 © Oncology Section, APTA
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article:

Note: If your society membership provides full-access, you may need to login on your society website