Vanessa Aird

Publications (3)7.91 Total impact

• Article: Applying Empirical Methods in Clinical Practice: Introducing the Model for Assessing Treatment Effect.

  Robyn L Tate, Christine Taylor, Vanessa Aird
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:: One challenge in rehabilitation is determining whether improvement in the patient is a treatment-specific effect or due to extraneous factors (eg, the passage of time, spontaneous recovery). DESIGN:: Descriptive, model building, and 2 cases illustrating the model. METHOD:: The Model for Assessing Treatment Effect (MATE) incorporates the conceptual frameworks of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), along with single-case experimental methodology. RESULTS:: The MATE contains 7 levels organized in a hierarchy, representing (i) increasing specificity of evaluation procedures and (ii) control of extraneous variables during therapy. Two illustrative cases of patients with traumatic brain injury undergoing inpatient rehabilitation for, inter alia, cognitive-communication impairments are described to illustrate common clinical practice (level 2 of MATE) and a superior method using a multiple-baseline design across behaviors, enabling rigorous evaluation of treatment effect (level 6 of MATE). CONCLUSIONS:: The MATE offers a systematic, evidence-based approach for implementing ICF-informed goals into clinical practice. It also provides a benchmark against which a clinical service can be evaluated in terms of the rigor of its therapy program.
  The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation 05/2012; · 2.39 Impact Factor
• Article: Validity and responsiveness of the care and needs scale for assessing support needs after traumatic brain injury.

  Cheryl Soo, Robyn L Tate, Vanessa Aird, Jeanine Allaous, Stuart Browne, Belinda Carr, Carissa Coulston, Louise Diffley, Joseph Gurka, Jill Hummell
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: To investigate the validity and responsiveness of the Care and Needs Scale (CANS), which was designed to assess support needs of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Two samples of community clients (n=38, n=30) were recruited to examine concurrent, convergent/divergent, and discriminant validity. The ability of the CANS to detect change over a 6-month period from the time of inpatient rehabilitation discharge (predictive validity and responsiveness) was investigated in a third sample of 40 rehabilitation inpatients. Two Brain Injury Rehabilitation Units in Sydney, Australia. People (N=108) aged between 16 and 70 years admitted for rehabilitation after TBI. Not applicable. The CANS, Supervision Rating Scale, FIM, Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale, and Disability Rating Scale. Evidence for concurrent validity was shown with fair to moderate correlation coefficients between the CANS and measures of supervision, functional independence, and psychosocial functioning (absolute value, r(s)=.43-.68; P<.01). Support for convergent and divergent validity was provided by correlation coefficients that were higher for measures tapping similar constructs (absolute value, r(s)=46; P<.01) but lower for measures of dissimilar constructs (absolute value, r(s)=.07-.26; not significant). In addition, the CANS discriminated between levels of injury severity, functional independence, and overall functioning (P<.01). In terms of predictive validity and responsiveness, CANS scores at inpatient rehabilitation discharge predicted the participant's functioning 6 months later. These results show the CANS is a valid and responsive tool and, together with its previously shown reliability, is suitable for routine application in clinical and research practice.
  Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 06/2010; 91(6):905-12. · 2.18 Impact Factor
• Article: Reliability of the care and needs scale for assessing support needs after traumatic brain injury.

  Cheryl Soo, Robyn Tate, Kate Hopman, Marcella Forman, Tanya Secheny, Vanessa Aird, Stuart Browne, Carissa Coulston
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: To investigate the reliability of the Care and Needs Scale (CANS) for measuring the level and types of support needs of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Interrater reliability was examined in a cohort of 30 community clients with TBI by comparing CANS ratings completed by 2 occupational therapists (OTs) and a case manager. CANS ratings on the same clients were also completed 1 week later to examine test-retest reliability. Reliability of proxy ratings was investigated in a cohort of 40 community clients with TBI by comparing CANS ratings completed by a clinical researcher, multidisciplinary team, relative, and client. Level of support need as measured by the CANS showed excellent interrater reliability both within and across disciplines: ICC = 0.95 between 2 OTs and ICC = 0.93 and 0.96 between OTs and case manager. Test-retest reliability of the CANS over a 1-week period was also excellent (ICC = 0.98). Although the agreement between the clinical researcher and multidisciplinary team was excellent (ICC = 0.92), ICCs with relative and client ratings were variable, ranging from 0.37 to 0.72. The excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability findings from this present study, together with the evidence for validity reported previously, indicate that the CANS is a reliable and valid instrument for application in clinical practice.
  Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 08/2007; 22(5):288-95. · 3.33 Impact Factor