Principal Component Analysis of the Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation Needs Survey: Comparison of Three Models

Abstract

<h3>Research Objectives</h3> To examine the higher-order structure of the Rehabilitation Needs Survey (RNS) and explore the internal consistency of the identified components. <h3>Design</h3> Principal Components Analysis; Cohort study. <h3>Setting</h3> Five Veterans Affairs (VA) Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers. <h3>Participants</h3> Persons enrolled in the VA Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) who completed a five-year post-TBI follow-up interview (N=378; 96% male, age M=34.8; SD=14.0). <h3>Interventions</h3> N/A. <h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3> RNS. <h3>Results</h3> The Kaiser Criterion resulted in a four-component solution with only three components containing ≥ 3 items (Cronbach alphas 0.837 to 0.900). The scree plot method resulted in a two-component solution with both containing ≥ 3 items (Cronbach alphas 0.826 to 0.901). Parallel analysis resulted in a three-component solution, all containing ≥ 3 items (Cronbach alphas 0.608 to 0.901). Twenty of the 21 items had acceptable corrected item-total correlations. The average corrected item-total correlations were 0.589 (range 0.224 to 0.715), 0.593 (range 0.434 to 0.712), and 0.602 (range 0.378 to 0.573) across the 4-, 2-, and 3-component solutions, respectively. There were between 7-9 cross-loading items depending on the model. Overall, items loaded on to components representing Activities/Participation and Body Functioning domains consistently and Vocation/Productivity inconsistently. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The three-component solution of the RNS appeared to be the clinically useful model that accounted for all 21 items with at least three items and minimally acceptable internal consistency. Although there were several cross-loading items, they refer to complex rehabilitation needs that are influenced by multiple factors. Alternatively, there are items that may require alteration and redundant items that should be considered for elimination. <h3>Author(s) Disclosures</h3> Funding: GDIT subcontract from DHA (Richardson [HT0014-21-C-0012]) and NIDILRR (O'Neil-Pirozzi, [#90DPTB0011], Walker, [#90DP0033]). This research was conducted with James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital resources and use of facilities. The views and/or findings are those of the authors and not official policy of the U.S. Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Defense Health Agency, or any other federal agency. No official endorsement should be inferred.