Cited by 78Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Assessing emotional status following acquired brain injury: The clinical potential of the depression, anxiety and stress scales

Ownsworth, Tamara, Little, Trudi, Turner, Ben, Hawkes, Anna, Shum, David·2008·Brain Injury

Abstract

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical potential of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS 42) and its shorter version (DASS 21) for assessing emotional status following acquired brain injury. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Participants included 23 individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI), 25 individuals with brain tumour and 29 non-clinical controls. Investigations of internal consistency, test-re-test reliability, theory-consistent differences, sensitivity to change and concurrent validity were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Internal consistency of the DASS was generally acceptable (r > 0.70), with the exception of the anxiety scale for the TBI sample. Test-re-test reliability (1-3 weeks) was sound for the depression scale (r > 0.75) and significant but comparatively lower for other scales (r = 0.60-0.73, p < 0.01). Theory-consistent differences were only evident between the brain tumour sample and non-clinical control sample on the anxiety scale (p < 0.01). Sensitivity to change of the DASS in the context of hospital discharge was demonstrated for depression and stress (p < 0.01), but not for anxiety (p > 0.05). Concurrent validity with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was significant for all scales of the DASS (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While the results generally support the clinical application of the DASS following ABI, further research examining the factor structure of existing and modified versions of the DASS is recommended.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699050802446697

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Ownsworth, T., Little, T., Turner, B., Hawkes, A., & Shum, D.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Cancer Council Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Ownsworth, Tamara
Venue
Brain Injury
Published
2008-01
Volume
22
Issue
11
Pages
858-869
ISSN
  • 0269-9052 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-301X
OpenAlex
W2040325952
Cited by
78
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Injury (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
acquired brain injury, traumatic brain injury, brain tumors, depression, anxiety, stress, DASS-42, DASS-21, psychometric properties, sensitivity to change, concurrent validity, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Brain Injuries, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Stress, Psychological, 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