SETTING: A single centre study, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged between 18 and 60 years with mTBI as a result of road traffic accident, with no previous history of head trauma, minimum of 9 years education and abnormal cognition at 3 months will be included. The exclusion criteria include pre-existing chronic illness or neurological/psychiatric condition, long-term medication that affects cognitive/psychological status, clinical evidence of substance intoxication at the time of injury and major polytrauma. Based on multiple estimated calculations, the minimum intended sample size is 50 participants (Cohen's d effect size=0.35; alpha level of 0.05; 85% power to detect statistical significance; 40% attrition rate).
INTERVENTIONS: Intervention group will receive individualised structured cognitive rehabilitation. Control group will receive the best patient-centred care for attention disorders. Therapy frequency for both groups will be 1 hour per week for 12 weeks.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: Neuropsychological Assessment Battery-Screening Module (S-NAB) scores. Secondary: Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) parameters and Goal Attainment Scaling score (GAS).
RESULTS: Results will include descriptive statistics of population demographics, CogniPlus cognitive program and metacognitive strategies. The effect of intervention will be the effect size of S-NAB scores and mean GAS T scores. DTI parameters will be compared between groups via repeated measure analysis. Correlation analysis of outcome measures will be calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient.
CONCLUSION: This is a complex clinical intervention with multiple outcome measures to provide a comprehensive evidence-based treatment model.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee UMMC (MREC ID NO: 2016928-4293). The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03237676.
METHOD: 783 Australian and 928 Malaysian parents provided ratings for an ADHD rating scale. Invariance was tested across these groups (Comparison 1), and North European Australian (n = 623) and Malay Malaysian (n = 571, Comparison 2) groups.
RESULTS: Results indicate support for form and item factor loading invariance; more than half the total number of symptoms showed item intercept invariance, and 14 symptoms showed invariance for error variances. There was invariance for both the factor variances and the covariance, and the latent mean scores for hyperactivity/impulsivity. For inattention latent scores, the Malaysian (Comparison 1) and Malay Malaysian (Comparison 2) groups had higher scores.
CONCLUSION: These results indicate fairly good support for invariance for parent ratings of the ADHD symptoms across the groups compared.