Interview Versus Self-Administration of Retrospective Brain Injury Identification

The Study:
This study examined whether people can accurately report their history of brain injuries in two different ways: by talking with a researcher (interview) or by completing a questionnaire on their own. It included 391 adults from across the United States. Participants completed the OSU TBI Identification Method in both formats, and some completed the self-administered version a second time later on.

The results showed that both approaches gave very similar answers. The interview and questionnaire agreed 85-90% of the time on whether a person had experienced a brain injury, including injuries that caused loss of consciousness or repeated hits to the head. Reporting of events leading to the brain not getting enough oxygen, such as strangulation, was less common, but when reported, agreement between methods was still high. There was also very high agreement for ever being diagnosed with other sources of acquired brain injury. Answers to the self-administered version were also consistent when administered a second time, as has been previously found with the interview version.

Who may be affected by these findings?
These findings may be useful for researchers, healthcare providers, and organizations that collect information about brain injuries. They are especially relevant for large studies or community settings where conducting interviews with every participant may not be practical. Individuals participating in research may also benefit, as self-completed questionnaires can be easier and more convenient.

Caveats:
Some types of events, particularly those involving lack of oxygen to the brain, were reported less often, which makes it harder to fully evaluate how well the two methods compare for these experiences.

Bottom Line:
Self-administered questionnaires and interviews for identifying a person’s history of brain injury give similar and reliable results over time. This suggests self-administered interviews are a practical and dependable alternative when interviews are not feasible.