Cited by 10Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchHealth Education and ValidationSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

How do people with acquired brain injury interpret the Valued Living Questionnaire? A cognitive interviewing study

Miller, Hannah, Lawson, David, Power, Emma, das Nair, Roshan, Sathananthan, Nick, Wong, Dana·2022·Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.01.003

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, H., Lawson, D., Power, E., das Nair, R., Sathananthan, N., & Wong, D.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Wong, Dana
Venue
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
23
Pages
125-136
ISSN
2212-1447 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4205727575
Cited by
10
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
acquired brain injury, valued living, cognitive interviewing, questionnaire comprehensibility, measurement validity, value consistency, cognitive demand, stroke, traumatic brain injury, brain tumors, valued activities, questionnaire adaptation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review