Cited by 11Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchCognitive Functions and Memory

Psychological predictors of functional outcomes in service members with traumatic brain injury

Ramanathan-Elion, Deepa M., Baydoun, Hind A., Johnstone, Brick·2020·Brain Injury

Abstract

Primary objective Research is increasingly demonstrating the significant impact that non-medical factors can have on outcomes of service members (SMs) with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Thus, the current study examined which demographic, TBI-related factors, and psychological variables are most predictive of functional outcomes. Research design Retrospective database analysis from medical chart review. Methods and procedures One hundred forty-one patients who received rehabilitation services at an outpatient TBI military treatment facility between 2013 and 2018. Data collected included demographic variables, time since injury, neuropsychological measures, psychological diagnoses, Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) scores, and Walter Reed Functional Impairment Scale (FIS). Hierarchical linear regression models were used to predict functional outcomes (measured by FIS total, work, social functioning scales). Main outcomes and results Results indicated that comorbid PTSD diagnosis and PAI Negative Impression Management (NIM) score were predictive of total functional, work, and social outcomes, over and above demographic and TBI-related factors. Conclusions Current findings confirmed the importance of evaluating and treating psychological factors, as well as exploring one's responding style (NIM), when managing chronic mTBI in SMs. Given ongoing findings of psychological underpinnings to mTBI outcome, there is further need to focus on early interventions to optimize psy…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699052.2020.1793387

Cites

70 of 70 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
Ramanathan-Elion, D. M., Baydoun, H. A., & Johnstone, B.
Affiliations
  • Department of Behavioral Health, Fort Belvoir Intrepid Spirit Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, USA
  • Alexander T. Augusta Military Medical Center (US)
  • Shepherd Center (US)
Venue
Brain Injury
Published
2020-07-19
Volume
34
Issue
9
Pages
1183-1192
ISSN
  • 0269-9052 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-301X
OpenAlex
W3043134847
Cited by
10
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Injury (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
mild traumatic brain injury, military personnel, functional outcome, psychological predictors, Personality Assessment Inventory, work functioning, social functioning, military rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Brain Concussion, Humans, Military Personnel, Personality Assessment, Retrospective Studies, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic

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