Cited by 147Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchMedical Practices and RehabilitationCognitive Functions and Memory

Metaphoric identity mapping: Facilitating goal setting and engagement in rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury

Ylvisaker, Mark, Mcpherson, Kathryn, Kayes, Nicola, Pellett, Ellen·2008·Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

Abstract

Difficulty re-establishing an organised and compelling sense of personal identity has increasingly been identified as a critical theme in outcome studies of individuals with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and a serious obstacle to active engagement in rehabilitation. There exists little empirical support for approaches to identity reconstruction that address common impairments associated with TBI. Similarly, there is as yet little empirical support for theoretically sound approaches to promoting engagement in goal setting for this population. This article has two purposes. First, theory and procedures associated with metaphoric identity mapping are discussed in relation to goal setting in TBI rehabilitation. Second, the results of a qualitative pilot study are presented. The study explored metaphoric identity mapping as a facilitator of personally meaningful goal setting with five individuals with significant disability many years after their injury. Drawing on principles of grounded theory, the investigators extracted data from semi-structured interviews with clients and clinicians, from focus groups with the clinicians, and from observation of client-clinician interaction. Analysis of the data yielded five general themes concerning the use of this approach: All clients and clinicians found identity mapping to be an acceptable process and also useful for deriving meaningful rehabilitation goals. Both clients and clinicians saw client-centred goals as important. Cognitive impairments posed obstacles to this goal-setting intervention and mandated creative compensations. And finally, identity-related goal setting appeared to require a "mind shift" for some clinicians and demanded clinical skills not uniformly distributed among rehabilitation professionals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09602010802201832

Cites

78 of 78 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
Ylvisaker, M., Mcpherson, K., Kayes, N., & Pellett, E.
Affiliations
  • College of Saint Rose (US)
  • Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
Corresponding author
Ylvisaker, Mark
Venue
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Published
2008-11
Volume
18
Issue
5-6
Pages
713-741
ISSN
  • 0960-2011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0694
OpenAlex
W2076606641
Cited by
147
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, identity reconstruction, goal setting, rehabilitation engagement, cognitive impairment, compensatory strategies, long-term disability
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Brain Injuries, Female, Goals, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Self Concept, Social Adjustment, Focus Groups

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