Résumés
Résumé
L’échelle d’impact des problèmes actuels de comportement (IMPAC) est un outil visant à mesurer l’impact des comportements problématiques chez les personnes ayant subi une lésion cérébrale acquise. Cette mesure évalue l’impact des comportements sur la personne cérébrolésée et son entourage selon cinq dimensions : les relations significatives, l’intégrité psychologique, l’accès aux services, l’intégrité physique et les interventions dispensées. Mis au point par des intervenants spécialisés en trouble du comportement chez la clientèle cérébrolésée, cet outil a fait l’objet d’une série de trois études de validation de contenu. Celles-ci ont été menées auprès d’experts et de professionnels du réseau de la réadaptation en déficience physique. Les résultats ont démontré que l’échelle IMPAC possède une validité de contenu satisfaisante, c’est-à-dire que les dimensions ciblées et les niveaux d’impact décrits pour chacune d’elles reposent sur des critères clairement définis et reconnus comme tels par les experts. L’échelle IMPAC constitue donc un instrument potentiellement utile pour les cliniciens qui souhaitent évaluer de manière objective l’impact des comportements problématiques d’un usager, et ainsi contribuer à guider les interventions prioritaires et à éclairer les décisions d’orientation vers des ressources d’hébergement ou des services spécialisés.
Mots-clés :
- comportements problématiques,
- trouble du comportement,
- trouble grave du comportement,
- impact,
- instrument de mesure,
- IMPAC,
- lésion cérébrale acquise
Abstract
The IMPAC Scale (Impact des problèmes actuels de comportement) is an instrument designed to evaluate the impact of challenging behaviour in people with acquired brain injury. This scale measures the impact of such behaviour on the brain-injured person and their social network based on five areas: significant relationships, psychological integrity, access to services, physical integrity and received interventions. The instrument was initially developed by specialized practitioners working with brain-injured persons exhibiting severe challenging behaviour. A series of three validation studies were conducted in which experts and practitioners in fields such as acquired brain injury rehabilitation were consulted. The results showed that the IMPAC Scale has satisfactory content validity — i.e. targeted impact areas and described impact levels are based on clearly defined criteria recognized as such by experts and practitioners. Therefore, the IMPAC Scale can be a useful tool for clinicians who need to objectively assess the impact of a user’s challenging behaviour, which can help prioritize interventions and recommend appropriate residential facilities or specialized services.
Keywords:
- problematic behaviour,
- challenging behaviour,
- behaviour disorders,
- impact,
- assessment instrument,
- IMPAC,
- acquired brain injury
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Alderman, N., Wood, R.L. et Williams, C. (2011). The development of the St Andrew’s-Swansea Neurobehavioural Outcome Scale: Validity and reliability of a new measure of neurobehavioural disability and social handicap. Brain Injury, 25(1), 83-100.
- Bohac, D.L., Malec, J.F. et Moessner, A.M. (1997). Factor analysis of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory: Structure and validity. Brain Injury, 11(7), 469-482.
- Brain injury association of America (s.d.) What is the difference between an acquired brain injury and a traumatic brain injury? Récupéré le 30 septembre 2020 de https://www.biausa.org/brain-injury/about-brain-injury/nbiic/what-is-the-difference-between-an-acquired-brain-injury-and-a-traumatic-brain-injury
- Brooks, N., McKinlay, W., Symington, C., Beattie, A. et Campsie, L. (1987). Return to work within the first seven years of severe head injury. Brain Injury, 1(1), 5-19.
- Brooks, D.N. et McKinlay, W. (1983). Personality and behavioural change after severe blunt head injury: A relative’s view. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 46(4), 336-344.
- Carnevale, G.J., Anselmi, V., Johnston, M.V., Busichio, K. et Walsh, V. (2006). A natural setting behavior management program for persons with acquired brain injury: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medecine and Rehabilitation, 87(10), 1289-1297.
- Caron, J., Fleury, M.J., Godbout, D. et Desranleau, M. (2005). Traumatisés cranio-cérébraux présentant des troubles graves du comportement : définition, mesure et détermination des besoins pour l’organisation des services. Rapport de recherche. Montréal : Québec. Centre de recherche de l’hôpital Douglas.
- Cattran, C., Oddy, M. et Wood, R. (2011). The development of a measure of emotional regulation following acquired brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33(6), 672-679.
- Corrigan, J.D. (1989). Development of a scale for assessment of agitation following traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11(2): 261–277.
- Fougeyrollas P. (2010) La funambule, le fil et la toile. Transformations réciproques du sens du handicap. Presses de l’Université Laval.
- Gagnon, J., Rochat, L., Messier, F., Chiocchio, F., Sordes, C., Beaulieu, J., et Fortin-Langelier, E. (2017). Développement d’une tâche pour dépister le risque de présenter des comportements inappropriés socialement suite à un traumatisme cranio-cérébral : la tâche de décision sociale (TDS). Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 49(2), 100-111. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000067
- Gagnon, J., Simpson, G.K., Kelly, G., Godbout, D., Ouellet, M., et Drolet, J. (2016). A French adaptation of the Overt Behaviour Scale (OBS) measuring challenging behaviours following acquired brain injury: The Échelle des comportements observables (ÉCO). Brain Injury, 30(8), 1019-1025.
- Gioia, G., Isquith, P., Guy, S.C. et Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychology, 6(3), 235-238.
- Godbout, D., Di Lillo, S., Deschênes, M., Thibault, G. et Gagnon, J. (2021). Impact des problèmes actuels de comportement - IMPAC. Guide de l’administrateur. Montréal : Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, 18 p.
- Godfrey, H.P., Harnett, M.A., Knight, R.G., Marsh, N.V., Kesel, D.A., Partridge, F.M. et Robertson, R.H. (2003). Assessing distress in caregivers of people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI): a psychometric study of the Head Injury Behaviour Scale. Brain Injury, 17(5), 427-435.
- Grace, J. & Malloy, P.F. (2001). Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe): Professional Manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
- Hicks, A. J., Gould, K.R., Hopwood, M., Kenardy, J., Krivonos, I. et Ponsford, J.L. (2017). Behaviours of concern following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury in individuals living in the community. Brain Injury, 31(10), 1312-1319.
- Johnson, R. & Balleny, H. (1996). Behaviour problems after brain injury: Incidence and need for treatment. Clinical Rehabilitation,10, 173-181.
- Kelly, G., Brown, S., Todd, J., et Kremer, P. (2008). Challenging behaviour profiles of people with acquired brain injury living in community settings. Brain Injury, 22(6), 457-470.
- Kelly, G., Todd, J., Simpson, G., Kremer, P. et Martin, C. (2006). The Overt Behaviour Scale (OBS): A tool for measuring challenging behaviours following ABI in community settings. Brain Injury, 20(3), 307-319.
- Knight, C., Alderman, N., Johnson, C., Green, S., Birkett-Swan, L. et Yorstan, G. (2008). The St Andrew’s Sexual Behaviour Assessment (SASBA): development of a standardised recording instrument for the measurement and assessment of challenging sexual behaviour in people with progressive and acquired neurological impairment. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 18(2), 129-159.
- Lipper-Gruner, M., Wedekind, C.H. et Klug, N. (2002). Functional and psychosocial outcome one year after severe traumatic brain injury and early-onset rehabilitation therapy. Journal of Rehabilitation Medecine, 34(5), 211-214.
- Marin, R.S., Biedrzycki, R.C. et Firinciogullari, S. (1991). Reliability and validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale. Psychiatry Research, 38(2), 143-162.
- Marsh, N.V., Kersel, D.A., Havill, J.A. et Sleigh, J.W. (2002). Caregiver burden during the year following severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(4), 434-447.
- Marsh, N.V. et Kersel, D.A. (2006). Frequency of behavioural problems at one year following traumatic brain injury: Correspondence between patient and caregiver reports. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 16(6), 684-694.
- Masson, F., Maurette, P., Salmi, L.R., Dartigues, J.F., Vecsey, J., Destaillats, J.M. et Erny, P. (1996). Prevalence of impairments 5 years after a head injury, and their relationship with disabilities and outcome. Brain Injury, 10(7), 487-498.
- McCauley, S.R., Levin, H.S., Vanier, M., Mazaux, J.M., Boake, C. Goldfader, P.R., Rockers, D., Butters, M., , D.A., Lambert, J. et Clifton, G.L. (2001). The neurobehavioural rating scale-revised: Sensitivity and validity in closed head injury assessment. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 71(5), 643-651.
- Paquet, M., Sabourin, G., Camiré, M., Gagnon, I., Gagnon, S. & Godbout, D. (à paraître). Élaboration d’une définition de « troubles graves de comportement » commune au réseau de la santé et des services sociaux.
- Perlesz, A., Kinsella, G., et Crowe, S. (1999). Impact of traumatic brain injury on the family: A critical review. Rehabilitation Psychology, 44(1), 6–35.
- Ponsford, J.L., Downing, M.G., Olver, J., Ponsford, M., Acher, R., Carty, M. et Spitz, G. (2014). Longitudinal follow-up of patients with traumatic brain injury: outcome at two, five, and ten years post-injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 31(1), 64-77.
- Rapoport, M., McCauley, S., Levin, H., Song, J. et Feinstein, A. (2002). The role of injury severity in neurobehavioral outcome 3 months after traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neurology, 15(2), 123-132.
- Sander, A.M., Maestas, K.L., Clark, A.N. et Havins, W.N. (2013). Predictors of emotional distress in family caregivers of persons with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review. Brain Impairment, 14(1), 113-129.
- Silver, J.M. et Yudofsky, S.C. (1991). The Overt Aggression Scale: Overview and guiding principles. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 3(2), S22-29.
- Stefan, A. et Mathé, J.F. (2016). What are the disruptive symptoms of behavioral disorders after traumatic brain injury? A systematic review leading to recommendations for good practices. Annals of Physical Rehabilitation Medecine, 59(1), 5-17.
- Stilwell, P., Stilwell, J., Hawley, C. et Davies, C. (1998). Measuring outcome in community-based rehabilitation services for people who have suffered traumatic brain injury: the Community Outcome Scale. Clinical Rehabilitation, 12(6), 521-531.
- Tam, S., McKay, A., Sloan, S. et Ponsford, J. (2015). The experience of challenging behaviours following severe TBI: A family perspective. Brain Injury, 29(7-8), 813-821.
- Vaishnavi, S., Rao, V. et Fann, J.R. (2009). Neuropsychiatric problems after traumatic brain injury: Unraveling the silent epidemic. Psychosomatics, 50(3), 198-205.
- Wilson, B.A., Alderman, N., Burgess, P.W., Emslie, H., Evans, J.J. (1996). Behavioral assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome. Thames Valley Test Company.
- Winkler, D., Unsworth, C. et Sloan, S. (2006). Factors that lead to successful community integration following severe traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 21(1), 8-21.
- Worthington, A.D., Matthews, S., Melia, Y. et Oddy, M. (2006). Cost-benefits associated with social outcome from neurobehavioural rehabilitation. Brain Injury, 20(9), 947-957.