title: A systematic review of assessment tools for adults used in traumatic brain injury research and their relationship to the ICF.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Good assessment is an essential component of effective patient management. Yet the sheer volume of available assessment instruments presents a barrier for the clinician or researcher to (a) be knowledgeable about suitable measures and (b) keep up-to-date with new measures that are published. In order to create a resource of currently-used measures, we conducted a systematic review of assessment tools used in the research literature on traumatic brain injury (TBI).
  
  
  METHODS
  We used two electronic databases (Medline and PsycINFO) to identify full-length, English-language articles published between 2000 and 2012 in which outcome in adults with TBI was assessed with behavioural tests or questionnaires.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The searches yielded 5,735 articles and after deletion of duplicates (n = 1,383) and articles not meeting selection criteria (n = 1,759), 2,593 articles were further examined. The articles contained 910 behavioural instruments, with a final set of 728 unique instruments. Each instrument was classified against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Half of the instruments (n = 370, 50.8%) evaluated the mental functions domain of the ICF body functions component, with a substantially smaller proportion (n = 64, 8.8%) examining specific motor-sensory and other body functions. Instruments also covered domains of activities/participation (n = 109, 15.0%), environmental factors (n = 22, 3.0%) and personal factors (n = 36, 4.9%). A substantial number of scales (n = 93, 12.8%) were multidimensional across the body function domains (n = 32), as well as the functioning and disability part of the ICF (n = 60). The remaining 5% of instruments addressed concepts not covered by the ICF, including quality of life (n = 19, 2.6%) and rehabilitation process tools (such as therapeutic alliance). The 728 instruments were listed and more than 70 of the most common, spread across 20 domains, were highlighted.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These data provide a comprehensive and up-to-date resource that gives the researcher or clinician a very large selection of assessment instruments covering the major areas of function pertinent to TBI.
authors.affiliation: Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. rtate@med.usyd.edu.au
authors.forename: Robyn L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Tate
authors.forename: Kali
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Godbee
authors.forename: Linda
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Sigmundsdottir
mesh_terms: D001930:Brain Injuries / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D063868:Patient Outcome Assessment