Cited by 4Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchCancer survivorship and care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Examining the construct validity of posttraumatic growth following moderate–severe traumatic brain injury: A mixed-methods analysis.

Abstract

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Posttraumatic growth (PTG) refers to positive changes that individuals experience in the wake of a stressful or traumatic event. Though growth and adaptation are considered ideal outcomes of rehabilitation, the extent to which PTG captures the unique experience of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) has not been empirically evaluated. The purpose of the current study was to establish construct validity of PTG for individuals following moderate-severe TBI. RESEARCH METHOD: Forty participants who received inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation services for moderate-severe TBI and who were > 1 year postinjury completed a one-time phone interview of mental health and quality of life assessments, and answered a free-response question about significant life changes after injury. Using convergent parallel design, scores on the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) were compared to other assessments and themes of PTG and posttraumatic depreciation derived through thematic analysis. RESULTS: = 11.20 years). Qualitatively derived themes of PTG aligned with domains of the PTGI, and endorsement of PTG was significantly associated with greater mental health and social support. DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence of the existence of PTG and posttraumatic depreciation in a sample of individuals with moderate-severe TBI, supporting its construct validity using mixed-methods data. Our findings may be helpful in identifying what significant changes may indicate significant growth and depreciation during the rehabilitation process, and be critical mechanisms for optimal psychosocial adjustment following brain injury. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/rep0000596

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 4

Metadata

Authors
Agtarap, S., Peckham, M., Lundstern, M., Bistricky, S., Boals, A., Gallagher, J., Hanks, R., Klyce, D. W., & Perrin, P. B.
Affiliations
  • Craig Hospital (US)
  • University of North Texas (US)
  • University of Denver (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Venue
Rehabilitation Psychology
Published
2025-11
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
457-471
ISSN
  • 0090-5550 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1544
OpenAlex
W4407299401
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Rehabilitation Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
posttraumatic growth, traumatic brain injury, moderate to severe TBI, construct validity, Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, psychosocial adjustment, mental health, social support, quality of life, rehabilitation outcomes
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Posttraumatic Growth, Psychological, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Reproducibility of Results

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